This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday is scheduled to hear the demands from leftists in the state of Colorado to censor the speech of Christian counselors.

Officials in the leftist state who multiple times have demanded the authority to censor Christians in the state have claimed that the counselors' speech is "behavior," which they say they can regulate.

But their agenda is clear in the details of their fight: They insist that no counselor can  encourage a patient to consider NOT being LGBT. But promotions of the LGBT lifestyle choices are fully encouraged.

Those same officials in Colorado repeatedly have tried to censor other Christians' speech, including that of Masterpiece Cakeshop baker Jack Phillips, who refused to violate his Christian faith by promoting deviant wedding arrangements.

The Supreme Court, in that case, scolded the state for its "hostility" to Christians. Then state officials doubled down, trying the same stunt with a web designer. And they lost again in court.

The case at issue involves licensed counselor Kaley Chiles, who is represented by the ADF.

"Chiles wants to help young people distressed about their gender achieve their chosen goal to grow comfortable with their bodies and avoid harmful drugs and procedures," the legal team said.

"But Colorado law forbids her from doing so."

Already, the U.S. government and 21 states, in addition to counseling groups, detransitioners, mental-health researchers, free speech advocates and others, are supporting Chiles' arguments.

"The government has no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors,:" said lawyer Jim Campbell. "There is a growing consensus around the world that adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria need love and an opportunity to talk through their struggles and feelings. Colorado's law harms these young people by depriving them of caring and compassionate conversations with a counselor who helps them pursue the goals they desire."

The legal team charged, "Chiles argues that Colorado's law violates her freedom of speech by prohibiting licensed counselors like her from engaging in counseling conversations with clients under age 18 who want to change some expression, behavior, identity, or feeling associated with their 'sexual orientation or gender identity.'"

The lawyers pointed out that the Democrat-led state, commanded at this time by Democrat homosexual Gov. Jared Polis, schemed to set up in the law a prohibition on counseling conversations "in one direction."

"For example, it allows counseling conversations that push young people toward a gender identity different than their sex but prohibits conversations that help them grow comfortable with their sex when they desire to do that. The law also threatens severe penalties, including suspension and even revocation of the counselor's license. This one-sided censorship comes amidst a growing national mental-health crisis and prevents many Colorado children from obtaining the counseling that they desire—and that is likely to help them."

The ADF said, "Many of Chiles' clients come to her because they share her Christian worldview and faith-based values. These clients believe their lives will be more fulfilling if they are aligned with the teachings of their faith. Yet Colorado law censors Chiles from speaking words her clients want to hear because the government does not like the view she expresses."

Detractors have called such counseling "conversion therapy" but the misnomer isn't accurate since the counseling actually involves helping patients come to grips with their own reality.

Judges in Colorado, who have moved so far into the leftist agenda the all-Democrat state Supreme Court actually tried to prevent President Donald Trump from being on the ballot in 2024, before being rebuked by the Supreme Court, have advocated for the state's censorship position.

There already is a split among federal appeals courts on the dispute, a key factor that the Supreme Court considers in accepting cases.

The 3rd and 11th circuit courts have found such bans suppress protected speech.

The state censorship plan is based on viewpoint restrictions, which the Supreme Court has opposed in previous cases.