Kansas City is arguing before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that it has the power to force Christian counselors to provide therapy to gay married couples — even after the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the government can't compel people to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. The city's position is essentially: "Nice ruling you got there, Supreme Court. Would be a shame if we just... ignored it."

Because apparently in Kansas City, the Constitution is more of a suggestion than a law.

The case involves two licensed counselors — Wyatt Bury and Pamela Eisenreich — who are challenging the city's public accommodation ordinance, which applies to all ages, along with a separate counseling ban targeting minors in both Kansas City and Jackson County, Missouri. Both counselors are represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, and their case has now landed before an 8th Circuit panel in St. Louis that includes Judges Steven Colloton and Bobby Shepherd — both George W. Bush appointees — and Judge Jonathan Kobes, a Donald Trump appointee.

Kansas City attorney Tara Kelly argued that the city's ordinance prohibits counselors from even telling certain clients their "patronage is unwelcome." Let that sink in. The government is telling private citizens — licensed professionals operating according to their religious convictions — that they can't even politely decline a client. You will perform the service, and you will smile while doing it.

The timing here couldn't be worse for Kansas City's legal team, and they know it. The Supreme Court's recent ruling in Chiles v. Colorado — which struck down Colorado's ban on so-called "conversion therapy" for minors — has fundamentally changed the landscape. During oral arguments earlier this month, the judges seemed to notice. One asked Kelly directly: "Why wouldn't Chiles have a bearing on the proper disposition of this relief?" Another observed that Kansas City and Jackson County "seem to be retreating, potentially."

Retreating. You love to see it.

ADF lawyer Bryan Neihart told the court that his clients have "essentially over-complied" with the existing regulations — meaning these aren't rebels looking for a fight. They're counselors who have bent over backwards to follow the rules while still trying to practice their faith. The government's response? Bend further.

This isn't even new territory. The 8th Circuit already ruled in Telescope Media Group v. Lucero that Minnesota couldn't force Christian videographers Carl and Angel Larsen to produce same-sex wedding videos. The Supreme Court said the same thing in 303 Creative and Masterpiece Cakeshop. The pattern is unmistakable: you cannot use anti-discrimination laws as a battering ram against the First Amendment.

But Kansas City doesn't care about patterns. U.S. District Judge Roseann Ketchmark, who heard the case below, upheld the counseling bans and only blocked the public accommodation ordinance on the narrow question of "pronoun usage." That's it. She greenlit everything else. So the counselors appealed, because what else do you do when a district court tells you the Supreme Court's religious liberty rulings don't apply to you?

Jackson County attorney Theresa Bullington was right there alongside Kelly, defending the county's parallel ban. Because when one government entity is trampling your rights, it helps to have a buddy.

Here's what this really comes down to: a city government looked at a string of Supreme Court decisions protecting religious liberty — Masterpiece Cakeshop, 303 Creative, Chiles v. Colorado — and said, "Yeah, but our local ordinance is different." It's not different. It's the same unconstitutional overreach wearing a municipal name tag.

As Just The News reported, the judges on this panel didn't seem to be buying what Kansas City was selling. And with three appointees who understand that the Bill of Rights isn't optional at the county line, there's a real chance this ordinance gets gutted on appeal.

For every retiree who's watched the government slowly expand its reach into churches, private businesses, and now therapy offices — this case is the line in the sand. Either the Supreme Court's rulings mean something, or they don't. Kansas City is betting they don't. The 8th Circuit is about to tell them otherwise.