11th Circuit rules that bans on anti-LGBTQ "conversion therapy" violate the First Amendment

[Calthrina950]

However to counter this, it's proven that you can't force change your sexuality (it can naturally shift over the course of a person's life, which is very different) so wouldn't adult conversion therapy technically fall foul of misleading/false advertising laws?

Sexual orientation is a Freudian psychological concept that was made up in the 1890s.  That the current liberal gospel requires a relatively new theoretical invention be regarded as an immutable human characteristic is as uninformed and uncritical as it is radical.  If you reject or critique this orthodoxy, then you are invariably labeled a bigot or homophobe.

If, like you say, your sexual orientation can naturally evolve or change over the course of your lifetime (presumably from changes in brain physiology) then there is no reason these same changes can't be induced as a result of drugs or other interventions (i.e., conversion therapy.)  In fact, it is the insistence on sexual orientation as the modality of human sexual expression that even makes conversion therapy theoretically possible.  

You are so good at using big words while saying absolutely nothing.

I have no real stake in the conversion therapy issue. But I do find it interesting that Del Tachi has adopted the positions which he's expounded upon here. And I do wonder whether he would approve of a future decision by a conservative Supreme Court majority to overrule Obergefell v. Hodges. If sexual orientation is an invented concept-and marriage itself, is an invented concept-then doesn't that mean that it's form can be changed again?

[Calthrina950]

And I do wonder whether he would approve of a future decision by a conservative Supreme Court majority to overrule Obergefell v. Hodges.

Firstly, I am at a loss as to what kind of fact pattern would even allow the Supreme Court to categorically reconsider Obergefell.  Secondly, a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage does not require enshrining sexual orientation as a protected class, and I don't think Obergefell attempts to take it there.  Kennedy's opinion describes that the Due Process protection "extends to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy" not only to the "immutable characteristics" that civil rights jurisprudence of the Warren Court often relied on.   

If sexual orientation is an invented concept-and marriage itself, is an invented concept-then doesn't that mean that it's form can be changed again?

Yes, and almost certainly will.  Obergefell only says that marriage (in whatever form) cannot be a right excluded to same-sex couples.   

I didn't say that the Court would categorically reconsider Obergefell; I was posing a hypothetical, and it wouldn't be surprising if there were some case, bearing upon the issue of gay rights, that would invite renewed discussion about the issue, either before the Court or elsewhere. I was trying to discern how you frame your viewpoints on conversion therapy with those touching upon gay marriage. And it appears that you adopt what we would call an "originalist" approach to the issue.