The ruling in favor of a Christian counselor comes even as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear a similar case that will decide whether counselors can speak truth to their clients or be forced by the government to affirm harmful cultural lies.
A Kentucky Christian counselor has emerged victorious after defending against what he called frivolous ethics complaints tied to his religious convictions on counseling. The decision underscores a broader national debate over when and whether states and licensing boards may regulate professional speech rooted in faith.
The counselor, who has not been publicly identified in filings, had been accused by the Kentucky Board of Social Work of breaching ethical standards for discussing his biblically based beliefs about LGBT ideology in his private social media posts and for offering faith-based counseling to clients. Among the statements he made online were that licensed mental health professionals are under “constant pressure to compromise beliefs to make people happy in this field (and in all our lives in general)” and that while he loves his “career and the people he serves with a passion,” he was “not going to sell [his] soul for it” nor would he “affirm rebellion against our Creator.”
The counselor was quickly fired by his employer, and several online activists who saw his posts filed ethics complaints with the board based on his beliefs that Christian perspectives on sexuality and identity should be part of his practice when clients request it.
After an internal ethics proceeding, the board determined that the charges lacked merit. A statement put out by Liberty Counsel, the counselor’s legal representative, praised the outcome, saying the board recognized that faith-informed counseling, when fully voluntary and respectful of clients’ beliefs, poses no ethical violation. They added that the counselor served his clients in accordance with both professional standards and his deeply held religious convictions.
Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, which represented the counselor before the board, celebrated the outcome, explaining,
“First Amendment speech and religious protections do not disappear when someone becomes a licensed counselor. These frivolous complaints are a clear attempt to unconstitutionally silence and censor opposing views.
There was no jurisdiction or cause here to regulate this counselor’s speech or discipline him based on private expressions of religious and political beliefs. The counselor’s employer should reinstate him immediately and correct this potentially costly mistake.”
In announcing the decision, the board reaffirmed that counselors must act within both professional guidelines and constitutional boundaries. A board representative stated that the oversight ensures client welfare and professional integrity while also respecting the right to sincerely held religious beliefs.
This ruling comes amid a growing wave of legal challenges involving counselors and licensed professionals asserting their rights to free speech and religious expression. One notable case now headed to the U.S. Supreme Court sheds light on the national stakes.
In March, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Chiles v. Salazar, a First Amendment challenge brought by Kaley Chiles, a Colorado counselor, against a Colorado law that bars counselors from discussing unwanted same-sex attraction with clients or encouraging them to align their lives with their biological sex. Under Colorado’s “conversion therapy” ban, Chiles can only affirm a minor’s gender identity or same-sex attraction, even if the minor seeks help in overcoming their confusion. Counselors who do anything else will face dire consequences to their livelihood, including suspension and even permanent revocation of their license.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which is representing Chiles, argues that the law censors speech and prevents minors from accessing the care they desire. The Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected her claim, saying that the law regulates professional conduct rather than free speech. But other circuits have split on the issue, so the High Court has agreed to take up the issue during its next term, which starts in October.
Legal advocates supporting counselors say these cases reflect a disturbing trend of state authorities imposing ideological conformity in private therapeutic conversations. At stake, they argue, are First Amendment rights to free speech and religious liberty, particularly in contexts where clients seek counseling grounded in faith.
“The government has no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors, nor should a counselor be used as a tool to impose the government’s biased views on her clients,” wrote ADF CEO and President Kristen Waggoner.
In the Kentucky case, the counselor’s successful defense is credited to a clear demonstration that his practice was voluntary and client-centered. His legal team emphasized that he did not impose beliefs and only addressed matters of sexuality or identity when requested. That aligned with the ethics board’s finding that voluntary, faith-based counseling conducted professionally poses no ethical violation.
For religious counselors who feel constrained by regulations or fear disciplinary action, this case may serve as a blueprint for how to bring a challenge. It suggests that voluntary faith-based practices and advice remain protected under both professional ethics and constitutional norms.
As the Colorado case heads to the Supreme Court, the Kentucky case showcases the legal questions that must be answered: Can states and state-regulated authorities punish counselors for speech grounded in religious belief if the client requests it? At what point does professional regulation cross into viewpoint censorship?
These questions are particularly charged given the split among federal appeals courts. The Third and Eleventh Circuits have found that bans on conversion therapy are unconstitutional restrictions on speech. The Ninth and Tenth Circuits upheld them as permissible regulation of conduct.
Justice Clarence Thomas, dissenting from the Court’s earlier refusal to hear a similar Washington case, warned that the issue would ultimately return to the High Court. And he was right, as the Supreme Court will soon have its say, potentially setting a new precedent for counselors nationwide.
The Kentucky counselor’s victory, while narrow and tied to facts specific to his case, should still be a concern to all freedom-loving Americans. He still hasn’t gotten his job back, and states and licensing boards increasingly insist that secular dogma, not the Constitution, should govern professional standards and a counselor’s advice to patients.
At the heart of these cases is the question of whether truth still matters in counseling. Secular psychology now says that counselors must affirm whatever identity or behavior a client claims, even if it contradicts biology, faith, or reality itself. This is not genuine help. It is the affirmation of confusion and brokenness.
Christian counselors know that true compassion means guiding people toward healing, not reinforcing harmful patterns. Scripture teaches that every person is created in God’s image and that freedom comes from aligning our lives with His design. When professionals are told they cannot speak truth about sexuality or identity, they are being censored and forced to participate in deception.
The Kentucky board’s decision shows that it is still possible for Christians to stand firm and continue ministering through their professions. However, the broader legal battles, such as the one now headed to the Supreme Court, reveal how fragile these freedoms are.
Suppose the Colorado government does succeed in forcing counselors to affirm delusions when the case if heard by the Supreme Court. The harm will not only fall on Christian professionals but on the very clients who are denied access to life-giving truth.
Jesus said, “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
The world claims that freedom is found in self-expression, even when it leads to destructive behavior. The Gospel declares that freedom is found in surrendering to God’s truth and walking in the Spirit. Christian counselors who stand on that truth embody what real help looks like, offering hope, healing, and transformation that no secular theory can provide.
The takeaway for believers is clear. We must pray for these counselors, support them in their battles, and refuse to accept a culture that would rather affirm delusion than extend biblical compassion. Real love does not lie. Authentic love points people to Christ, who alone can heal the heart and restore the soul.
And let’s pray that the U.S. Supreme Court reminds progressive governments and licensing boards that the First Amendment applies to all Americans — including Christian counselors.
If you like this article and other content that helps you apply a biblical worldview to today’s politics and culture, consider making a donation here.
