Oregon counselor sues after being fined $90,000 for not affirming client’s same-sex relationship

“The government can’t target counselors for their views and can’t force people to say things that go against their core convictions,” ADF attorney Jonathan Scruggs said.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a Christian legal group representing the counselor, Frank Canepa, filed the lawsuit on May 1 at the Oregon Court of Appeals, asking for the order to be overturned.

According to ADF, Canepa had treated the client at least 44 times in over two years and had never mentioned his religious views on same-sex relationships. In one session, however, Canepa’s client insisted for 20 minutes that he “personally bless” her same-sex relationship.

Canepa said he tried to politely redirect the client’s repeated demands for him to disclose his personal views on her same-sex relationship but because she persisted, he finally told her he could not affirm it.

By doing so, according to the Oregon Board of Licensed Professional Counselors and Therapists, he violated state law as well as the American Counseling Association’s Code of Ethics.

The board ordered Canepa to attend six hours of continuing education and pay for his own hearing, which cost $89,636.

“The government can’t target counselors for their views and can’t force people to say things that go against their core convictions,” said Jonathan Scruggs, ADF senior counsel and vice president of litigation strategy.

Scruggs referred to the recently decided Chiles v. Salazar case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision on March 31, ruled that the state cannot silence counselors’ personal or professional viewpoints during talk therapy sessions with clients.

The court held that such counseling conversations are protected speech under the First Amendment and that Colorado’s law targeting certain viewpoints on sexual orientation and gender identity constituted unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

ADF lawyer Logan Spena, one of Canepaʼs attorneys, told EWTN News he is hopeful the Oregon appeals court will follow the U.S. Supreme Courtʼs reasoning in Chiles, which Spena said was “so strong.”

“Counseling is speech, which is protected by the First Amendment,” Spena said. “Oregon law says counselors can’t impose their values on their clients. Canepa did not do that. He answered the client’s question when she demanded to know his personal view.”

“In the context of a counseling relationship, people want to know about their counselors,” he continued. “Transparency and authenticity are required for a good counseling relationship,” which, in Canepa and the clientʼs case, lasted two and a half years.

Terry Braciszewski, president-elect of the Catholic Psychotherapy Association, which submitted an amicus brief in the Chiles vs. Salazar case, told EWTN News that Canepa “is not cited for being malicious or non-therapeutic but rather for refraining from abandoning his beliefs … he was being ethical and moral in adhering to his therapeutic approach and care for the person.”

“These personal therapeutic qualities likely contributed to why the client continued seeing Canepa for two and a half years,” he said.

Canepa did not “endorse a position that was in opposition to his faith and beliefs,” Braciszewski said. Instead, he “chose to affirm his rights” to free speech and the free exercise of his religion.

“The Supreme Court recently took Colorado to task for censoring counselors and mandating orthodoxy in the counselor’s office,” Scruggs said. “Now, Oregon needs to learn the same First Amendment lesson. We are urging the Oregon appellate court to overturn the board’s unlawful demand, restore First Amendment sanity, and halt the state’s attempt to weaponize its licensure system.”