Oregon Punishes Catholic Counselor for Not Affirming Same-Sex Relationships

Can the government punish a counselor for honestly answering a client’s repeated questions about the counselor’s personal view? In Oregon, the answer is yes—and Frank Canepa has the $90,000 fine to prove it.

Frank never set out to share his personal beliefs with his client. But when a client insisted he answer her question about same-sex relationships for twenty minutes during a session, out of respect for the client, he finally gave an honest answer rooted in his Catholic faith. That answer cost him nearly $90,000.

That penalty isn’t just unjust—it’s unconstitutional. The government cannot dictate which viewpoints counselors are allowed to reveal. Punishing a counselor for sharing his personal beliefs—especially ones he shared only after persistent questioning—is exactly what the First Amendment forbids.

Frank Canepa was harshly punished for revealing his beliefs after twenty minutes of persistent questioning

Frank is a licensed counselor in Oregon. He earned a master’s degree in counseling from George Fox University, and he offers counseling for his clients built on an authentic, transparent relationship.

Frank saw one of his clients once (and sometimes twice) a week for nearly three years. Over those years, the client brought up her romantic relationships—some same-sex, some opposite-sex—many times.

During their sessions, Frank never brought up his own view on the subject. But eventually, the client asked Frank to give a “personal affirmation” on same-sex relationships. Frank did his best to redirect the client’s question without revealing his own view. But, after twenty minutes of the client’s insistence, Frank knew that he couldn’t stonewall this question. He saw that, to preserve the authentic, transparent counseling relationship the two had built over so long, he needed to answer. So, he explained that he could not personally affirm same-sex relationships because of his Catholic faith.

Soon after, the client chose to stop meeting with Frank. Then a report was filed with Oregon’s Board of Licensed Professional Counselors and Therapists. The board opened an investigation in 2023 and later filed a notice of proposed disciplinary action accusing Frank of trying to impose his values on his clients, even though all Frank did was reveal his personal view after a client’s persistent questioning.

Nonetheless, the Board concluded that Frank broke the rule and ordered him to take six hours of continuing education. And, because Oregon law allows the Board to charge Frank the full cost of the disciplinary proceedings against him, the Board also fined him nearly $90,000.

The First Amendment protects counselors’ speech

In March 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a monumental win for free speech in counseling in Chiles v. Salazar. Alliance Defending Freedom’s client, Kaley Chiles, is a counselor in Colorado who faces a state law barring her from counseling her minor clients to help those struggling with gender confusion regain comfort with their bodies. But in an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court rightly recognized Colorado’s actions as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

In the majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, “[T]he First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth.”

The First Amendment clearly protects the right of all Americans to express what they believe. That means government officials shouldn’t be allowed to target or punish counselors, such as Kaley and Frank, simply because they disagree with the counselors’ viewpoint.

Standing up for freedom of speech

In Frank’s administrative proceedings in 2024 and 2025, he invoked the same free speech principles the Supreme Court would ultimately sustain in Chiles. But the administrative law judge rejected Frank’s arguments at the time and recommended professional discipline for Frank: six hours of continuing education and paying legal costs of up to $100,000. Sadly, the Board of Licensed Professional Counselors and Therapists adopted the judge’s ruling and ordered Frank to pay $89,636.43 and to go through the continuing education (though the Board did agree to put the financial penalty on hold until all appeals are exhausted).

Frank is appealing the case to the Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon. ADF is now serving as co-counsel on appeal.

The bottom line

Free speech is for everyone, including in the counseling room. No government should punish a counselor for honestly answering a client’s question about his or her beliefs. As the Supreme Court held in Chiles, the Constitution doesn’t allow the state to dictate which viewpoints counselors are allowed to express in the counseling room.

Canepa v. Board of Licensed Professional Counselors and Therapists

• July 2023: Frank’s client repeatedly pressed him to disclose his personal view on same-sex relationships. After multiple attempts to avoid sharing it, Frank explained that he could not personally affirm same-sex relationships because of his Catholic faith. A complaint was later filed against Frank with the state’s licensure board.
• January 2025: An administrative law judge heard Frank’s case and concluded that Frank violated the American Counseling Association Code of Ethics. The judge recommended professional discipline that included making Frank pay legal costs up to $100,000 and take six hours of continuing education.
• August 2025: The Board adopted the judge’s recommendations to punish Frank for revealing his beliefs.
• December 2025: Frank was ordered to pay the $89,636.43 bill of costs.
• April 2026: ADF, alongside local attorney Matthew Wand, filed their opening brief appealing the Board’s decision to the Court of Appeals for the State of Oregon.