‘Tough Case To Argue’: SCOTUS Poised To Back Parental Opt-Out For LGBT Content In School (1 Viewer)

[NotreDame]

I can’t wait for parents to demand their children never hear “one nation, under god” in a classroom again.

And that it not be posted in any classroom.

And that their kids all be given a place to go every time that phrase is even mentioned…so they don’t have to even do much as hear it.


Religious liberty included freedom from having to hear your religion.




Will be interesting to see what SCOTUS decides in this case, because if “religious liberty” means a kid has to be accomodated from even hearing something they don’t believe….thats one hell of a can of worms to open.

No more Pledge in schools would be the first thing any non-religious person should attack. The pledge mentions god.

can’t wait for parents to demand their children never hear “one nation, under god” in a classroom again.

The POA was challenged by a parent as violative of his daughter’s free exercise of religion and establishment clause rights because of the phrase “under god,” in 2004, twice in 2014 in a Massachusetts and New Jersey cases.

And that their kids all be given a place to go every time that phrase is even mentioned…so they don’t have to even do much as hear it.

Commonly called “safe spaces,” not a nascent phenomenon but in existence for awhile, and subject to derision from some of the left, right, and center.

Will be interesting to see what SCOTUS decides in this case, because if “religious liberty” means a kid has to be accomodated from even hearing something they don’t believe….thats one hell of a can of worms to open.

That “can of worms” isn’t before the Court. The “can of worms” apparently is in regards to instruction that LGBTQ is right not wrong and conflicts with the religious instruction of wrong or immoral.

 

[BirdinHand]

That “can of worms” isn’t before the Court. The “can of worms” apparently is in regards to instruction that LGBTQ is right not wrong and conflicts with the religious instruction of wrong or immoral

nope.

The instruction has nothing to do with LGBT.

The case is about exposure to LGBT in books where the instruction is general educational topics such as reading, etc.

They’re saying exposure = condoning and therefore, goes against their beliefs and they don’t even want their kids to be incidentally exposed to LGBT during the course of education by having characters, settings, themes, etc in books that show LGBT people, places, themes, etc.

Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Tuesday in the first of two cases in April involving religion and public schools. In Mahmoud v. Taylor a coalition of parents […]

www.scotusblog.com

One book specifically mentioned is “Pride Puppy”

The book is an alphabet book where A is for adventure. It is for reading.

But, because the setting for the book is a Pride parade? The parents say that they don’t want their kid exposed to that and should be able to opt out

No lesson. No talk of LGBT. Not even mention of “gay” or anything such as that in the book.

It’s just the setting. And there’s not even a lewd photo to get upset about.

 

[BirdinHand]

The POA was challenged by a parent as violative of his daughter’s free exercise of religion and establishment clause rights because of the phrase “under god,” in 2004, twice in 2014 in a Massachusetts and New Jersey cases

As we have seen, things change.

Let’s see what SCOTUS comes back with

 

[NotreDame]

A factual representation of the case is that 2 families are saying they should be able to opt their kids out of even being present when stories are read as part of the general curriculum (so, a reading class, for example) when they disagree with the content on a religious basis (one story book mentioned is “Pride Puppy” - a book with no mention whatsoever of anything questionable…but where the “setting” of the book is a Pride parade.)

If you can make the school excuse your kid from the room, school, etc over “Pride Puppy”…an atheist can demand their kid not have to see the Pledge of Allegiance on a wall or be excused from having to hear the pledge recited, etc.

The knife cuts both ways.

What constitutional right of the atheist parent is violated by the POA appearing on a wall where the child can view it? Next, how is that example you invoke paralle to these facts.

Second, the brevity of your summary conveying innocuous facts is inconsistent with the factual record before the court.

“In another book, Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope, approved for use in Kindergarten through Grade 5 and targeted for use in Grade 5, the main character is a biological girl who becomes upset when others say, “you look like your sister,” J.A. 244, because “nside I’m a boy. When I close my eyes and dream, I’m a boy,” J.A. 248. Penelope’s family is supportive, and “make a plan to tell everyone” that Penelope is a boy even if it “doesn’t make sense” to them because “[n]ot everything needsto make sense. This is about love.” J.A. 255, 259; see J.A. 242–76 (reproducing Jodie Patterson, Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope (2021)).”

“While their individual contents vary, the Storybooks as a whole express their authors’ views on sexual orientation and gender identity by portraying homosexual, transgender, and non-binary characters in various situations.”

The teachers were provided “guidance” responses to parents and students. Some such “guidance” to either the student or parent included, “The guidance also counsels that if a student says that “a girl . . . can only like boys because she’s a girl,” the teacher can “[d]isrupt the either/or thinking by saying something like: actually, people of any gender can like whoever they like….response to a caregiver’s concern that values in the books “go against the values we are instilling . . . at home,” the guidance suggests reiterating that “[t]he purpose of learning about gender and sexual[] identity diversity is to demonstrate that children are unique and that there is no single way to be a boy, girl, or any other gender…”

Those few facts, inter alia, form a part of the parent’s claim their FEOR rights are implicated.

 

[NotreDame]

I agree completely.

Typo…the parents aren’t objecting to anti-bullying instruction.

 

[NotreDame]

Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Tuesday in the first of two cases in April involving religion and public schools. In Mahmoud v. Taylor a coalition of parents […]

www.scotusblog.com

One book specifically mentioned is “Pride Puppy”

The book is an alphabet book where A is for adventure. It is for reading.

But, because the setting for the book is a Pride parade? The parents say that they don’t want their kid exposed to that and should be able to opt out

No lesson. No talk of LGBT. Not even mention of “gay” or anything such as that in the book.

It’s just the setting. And there’s not even a lewd photo to get upset about.

Your summation is woefully anemic of the factual record developed in the lower courts.

nope.

The instruction has nothing to do with LGBT.

The case is about exposure to LGBT in books where the instruction is general educational topics such as reading, etc.

Before hastily declaring a “nope” inundated with 100% self-assurance of being ineluctable, you might want to research the facts of the case and read the transcript of oral argument.

The facts exceed mere “exposure.”

“1. While their individual contents vary, the Storybooks as a whole express their authors’ views on sexual orientation and gender identity by portraying homosexual, transgender, and non-binary characters in various situations….In another book, Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope, approved for use in Kindergarten through Grade 5 and targeted for use in Grade 5, the main character is a biological girl who becomes upset when others say, “you look like your sister,” J.A. 244, because “nside I’m a boy. When I close my eyes and dream, I’m a boy,” J.A. 248. Penelope’s family is supportive, and “make a plan to tell everyone” that Penelope is a boy even if it “doesn’t make sense” to them because “[n]ot everything needsto make sense. This is about love.” J.A. 255, 259; see J.A. 242–76 (reproducing Jodie Patterson, Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope (2021))…..
For example, if a student says "Being _ (gay, lesbian, queer, etc) is wrong and not allowed in my religion," teachers "can respond," "I understand that is what you believe, but not everyone believes that. We don't have to understand or support a person’s identity to treat them with respect and kindness….In response to a caregiver’s concern that values in the books “go against the values we are instilling . . . at home,” the guidance suggests reiterating that “[t]he purpose of learning about gender and sexual[] identity diversity is to demonstrate that children are unique and that there is no single way to be a boy, girl, or any other gender….595. The guidance also counsels that if a student says that “a girl . . . can only like boys because she’s a girl,” the teacher can “[d]isrupt the either/or thinking by saying something like: actually, people of any gender can like whoever they like. . .”

They’re saying exposure = condoning and therefore, goes against their beliefs and they don’t even want their kids to be incidentally exposed to LGBT during the course of education by having characters, settings, themes, etc in books that show LGBT people, places, themes, etc.

The parents made a factual record below, some of which I referenced, inconsistent with the notion that only mere exposure is occurring.

Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Tuesday in the first of two cases in April involving religion and public schools. In Mahmoud v. Taylor a coalition of parents […]

www.scotusblog.com

Fantastic, you have access to SCOTUSblog. So have you also read: “Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested that the teaching of the content in the storybooks might amount to more than mere exposure. Presentation of an idea as fact, such as telling students that “this is the right view of the world,” she posited, is different from exposure – such as telling students that “some people think” a particular thing.

Justice Neil Gorsuch echoed this idea, indicating that for a teacher to tell students that “some people think X, and X is wrong and hurtful and negative’” would be “more than exposure on your theory.”

Ample facts developed within the record before the lower courts for Gorduch and Barrett to assert mere “exposure” is not the full extent of what is transpiring/transpired.

 

[NotreDame]

As we have seen, things change.

Let’s see what SCOTUS comes back with

Hold up!!!!!

You invoked what you perceived as potentially undesirable outcomes of atheist challenges to displays of the POA viewed by children, children hearing POA recitation, if the Court, relying upon a specific reasoning, ruled in favor of the parents’ free exercise of religion rights. Ostensibly, you weren’t aware atheist and others have already challenged the POA.

Are you aware of those decisions, the facts of the case, and the legal basis, and outcomes to know whether “things change”? Are those cases properly parallel to this case to qualify as a potential “change”? Do you know that?

 

[RetiredAtLast]

This case is about parents not even wanting their kids EXPOSED to content they find objectionable to their religion - even if the exposure is during the course of reading class, etc.

No, it isn't. It's about parents wanting to make the decisions, for their kids, about when they feel that their own kids are ready to discuss sexuality.

If the book has a gay person in it? The parents want to be able to opt their kid out of participating and/or make it so that the teacher has to provide different curriculum/materials for the student.

And the state was just fine with that until they realized that so many parents took their kids out of it that they couldn't teach it at all. They were so determined to impose their will on the kids that they created a prohibition on parents making that decision.

If the setting of a book is a setting they disagree with (Pride Puppy, for example) and it is a reading class? They want their student taught from a different book or able to be excluded from class.

That's right. And it should be their prerogative. A little off subject, but that's why school boards are elected by the people instead of being appointed by the teachers.

That’s one gigantic ask with a lot of ramifications.

It's not an ask at all. It's a demand, now part of a Supreme Court case. And the ramifications, if the parents win the suit, will be merely to select other books the purpose of which is reading instruction.

Be careful what you ask for

I'm not asking for anything. The parents in that District are asking that their kids be able to read. Last year only 1/3 of 4th graders could read at the "Proficient" level. It wouldn't be surprising if parents wanted better for their kids.

 

[VySky]

But, because the setting for the book is a Pride parade? The parents say that they don’t want their kid exposed to that and should be able to opt out

That is a logical response based on religious principles. Just as they wouldn't want their kids to learn the adventures experienced at say a KKK rally or an orgy etc.

There are a host of settings they could use but there is a determined effort to have the setting at a Pride event. We know why that is, and some parents reject it based on religious beliefs.

 

[ataraxia]

Religious liberty must be respected. I recall this topic being discussed ad nauseam regarding the boy who had long braided hair that violated school policy.

Yep. Pretty soon they will outlaw evolutionary biology and will be teaching that the founders of this country didn't want separation of church and state, but a Christian Republic- preferably only for white people.

No wonder the founding fathers of this country warned us against such people.

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
_Thomas Jefferson

"Mingling religion with politics may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America….As an engine of power it serves the purpose of despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or hereafter.”
_Thomas Paine

 

[NuffSaid]

Know what else happens around puberty? Kids think for themselves and they'll decide what they think about these subjects.

Nah, MAGA kids are raised to hate gay and trans people.
By the time they are hitting puberty, they’ve already been manipulated by Fox News and their MAGA parents.

 

[NuffSaid]

That is a logical response based on religious principles. Just as they wouldn't want their kids to learn the adventures experienced at say a KKK rally or an orgy etc.

There are a host of settings they could use but there is a determined effort to have the setting at a Pride event. We know why that is, and some parents reject it based on religious beliefs.

Religious principals?
Is this the same group that voted for a sexual abuser and a felon? That religious principal?

 

[Cope]

Gay marriage does exist- Obergefell v. Hodges

LGBTQ people do exist and they arent diseased or 2nd class people. Maybe you should read your bible and see what Jesus had to say on how to treat your fellow people. If reading the bible isn't a violation of your religious beliefs. Matt 19:12

Kids cannot be groomed by reading a book or knowing the Pride parades exist. Kids can be groomed by minsters, so your kids are safer at drag queen story hour than they are at church.

Someone cannot change their gender identity. Trans kids are born transgender and come to realize it, usually around puberty. Its not because they read a book or saw a film or it was discussed at school.

These parents are no different than creationist nutjobs who dont want their precious kidlets taught the facts of evolution.

Yes, they all exist.
As to the grooming assertion, of course they can be groomed. If they can be groomed by ministers, they can be groomed by teachers, and reading books, and the promotion of the things you just incorrectly assert as untrue (due to your faulty and biased belief)

What you have zero facts for is your claim that opting out equates to bullying.

 

[VySky]

Yes, they all exist.

What you have zero facts for is your claim that opting out equates to bullying.

Imagine being so lacking in debate skills one has to pull the racist and or bullying card.

They think its like a get out of jail free card.

 

[Metric Mouse]

What other weird beliefs should be accommodated? Which religions? Satanism?

Of course? Why not? What's wrong with the Satanic Temple?

 

[Master Debator]

This attempt by bigot parents to shield their children from LGTBQ books is just ****ing funny to me. I can't really get mad at bingos endeavoring to emotionally stunt their own children by banning books. Do these dumb ****tards know that the majority of their kids don't read? What they do do is consume media and entertainment non stop through their phones and all of that stuff is so gay. So so gay. Movies are gay, tv is gay, tik tok is gay. The people getting dressed up to perform for you are incredibly gay. It's like trying to protect your kids from porn today by making them verify IDs when you call a 1 800 number. You lost you ****ing morons.

 

[VySky]

I can't really get mad at bingos endeavoring to emotionally stunt their own children by banning books.

Stunting? LMAO.... How about polluting?

 

[Gordy327]

Religious liberty must be respected.

why? Religion tends to show respect to others.

I recall this topic being discussed ad nauseam regarding the boy who had long braided hair that violated school policy.

So?

You believe also in red herrings and unicorns. So there’s that.

It's no different than believing in god/s.

Too funny. Thanks for the laughs.

I see you cannot refute what is stated.

 

[Master Debator]

Stunting? LMAO.... How about polluting?

Yes, stunting. Emotionally. Same as if you refused to teach your boys that women where deserving of equal rights and respect or black people or jews. It may be your right to attempt to instill misogyny, racism or bigotry into your children but those things are emotionally stunting. Not teaching respect for women is why the white right has an incel problem.

 

[VySky]

Same as if you refused to teach your boys that women where deserving of equal rights and respect or black people or jews.

I and obviously many others don't have that view.

It may be your right to attempt to instill misogyny, racism or bigotry into your children but those things are emotionally stunting.

That is your opinion on the consequences of the action. Thanks for sharing

 

[Master Debator]

I and obviously many others don't have that view.

That you're emotionally stunted? Why would you? If you weren't emotionally stunted and instead where emotionally self aware we wouldn't be having this conversation.

That is your opinion on the consequences of the action. Thanks for sharing

It's not a opinion that being gay or lesbian or bisexual or trans or queer is perfectly natural. That's just a fact. Whether or not you can accept that fact without any fantasy or make believe about the LGTBQ community is how one determines if you're emotionally stunted or not.

 

[VySky]

It's not a opinion that being gay or lesbian or bisexual or trans or queer is perfectly natural.

Sure it is.

That's just a fact.

Facts not in evidence

Whether or not you can accept that fact without any fantasy or make believe about the LGTBQ community is how one determines if you're emotionally stunted or not.

One can form any opinion they want.

 

[Lisa]

The classroom instruction either isn’t “anti-bullying” or exceeded mere “anti-bullying.” The parents are objecting to “anti-bullying” in this case.

Are you sincerely claiming that the bible and the teachings of Jesus condone or support bullying? When did Jesus teach bullying during the Sermon on the Mount?

Matt 7:12
Luke 6:31
Matt 25:40

I can keep going if you want

 

[Lisa]

Yes, they all exist.
As to the grooming assertion, of course they can be groomed. If they can be groomed by ministers, they can be groomed by teachers, and reading books, and the promotion of the things you just incorrectly assert as untrue (due to your faulty and biased belief)

What you have zero facts for is your claim that opting out equates to bullying.

Grooming to change a persons gender idneity or sexual orientation is not medically possible. This has been known for over 40 plus years, because if it were possible then John Money would have succeeded into making David Reimer into Brenda. Obviously that didn't happen. Conversion theory would also be successful if grooming were possible but its not. Its so dangerous that is has been banned in many countries and US states.

LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Master Debator]

Sure it is.

It sure is and look how emotional it makes you. You can't debate the point so all you're left with to cope with your intellectual impotence is emotional incredulity.

Facts not in evidence

There's plenty of biological fact and observation surrounding same sex attraction.

One can form any opinion they want.

But not whatever facts they want. There there.