Supreme Court to hear case on opting out of lessons with LGBTQ+ books

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of you arguing that this is about religious freedom and not homophobia are strange. If a school taught a book where the main character eats pork, it would not be offensive to muslim or kosher students because they themselves aren't eating pork. Religious freedom is about what you do, not what the people around you do.

Wrong. The equivalent would be a school deliberately choosing to have teachers read a series of books about eating pork, and then launching a teacher-led classroom discussion about why it’s ok to eat pork, then saying parents can opt out from those lessons, and then rescinding that option under political pressure.

Get it now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of you arguing that this is about religious freedom and not homophobia are strange. If a school taught a book where the main character eats pork, it would not be offensive to muslim or kosher students because they themselves aren't eating pork. Religious freedom is about what you do, not what the people around you do.

Wrong. The equivalent would be a school deliberately choosing to have teachers read a series of books about eating pork, and then launching a teacher-led classroom discussion about why it’s ok to eat pork, then saying parents can opt out from those lessons, and then rescinding that option under political pressure.

Get it now?

Yes this does sound more comparable. It’s about the pushing of a narrative in a preaching way rather than just having characters that happen to be gay for instance.

[Anonymous]

As the mother of 20 something kids, I can tell you that it seems to me the constant beating of the LBGTQ gender fluidity drum has been very confusing…so confusing that kids don’t know who they are, experimentation leads to false labeling, anxiety, depression and questioning. It’s not as liberating as we are lead to think…and social media makes it worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP have you read this lawsuit in its entirety?

I have they will lose .

It is the worst written lawsuit. The lawyers on the side of the religious zealots should lose their license because of how bad they wrote their side.

It is religious garbage. Worse than that they want add religious indoctrination into public schools.

Well of course it is! It's written by religious ignoramuses MAGA dorks. Not intellectuals.

When you can’t argue the merits of an issue, just fall back to name calling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand where kids are “getting indoctrinated”? My kids attend DCPS and are in high school. I’m don’t see any indoctrination.

Read Maryland’s instruction guidelines for this program. Perfect example of indoctrination and why SCOTUS will implement the opt out.

Enough with the “we just want to exist” blather. Everyone knows gay people exist and an opt out policy is not banning books. Such tired and easily falsified arguments.

I’m not gay. I’m your average GenX mom of teenagers. I do think MAGA wants to erase people who don’t fit their ideal. White, Christian, heterosexual, Trump-loving, working to middle class or billionaire. You refuse to acknowledge there are other people in this world who want to read about their history/experience in literature. MAGA cannot handle a reality different than their own.

Many of the parents opposed to this curriculum are Muslim and/or African. Yet you single out only white Christians and MAGA supporters when a whole host of parents from different backgrounds don’t want your liberal propaganda taught to their children in school.

Yes, a lot Muslim parents object to the removal of the opt out. The case is actually called Mahmoud vs Taylor. The two lead challengers are Muslim parents with a child in elementary school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

Except the kids being opted out are the ones that need to know it’s ok and normal to be gay or be part of a gay family.

You know what my kids conversations are on this very issue, they don't care that you're gay, they don't care who you kiss, they don't want to talk about it because they don't want to talk about sex stuff. It's really that simple for kids, you just don't get it. Why are we overcomplicating kids, if they don't want to be part of it I'm sure they have genuine feelings why that is, and their feelings matter just as much as the LGBT kids' feelings matter.

So why are they talking about sex period? If it is about exposure, don’t talk about it period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As the mother of 20 something kids, I can tell you that it seems to me the constant beating of the LBGTQ gender fluidity drum has been very confusing…so confusing that kids don’t know who they are, experimentation leads to false labeling, anxiety, depression and questioning. It’s not as liberating as we are lead to think…and social media makes it worse.

Meanwhile, the opposite occurred in my life. Constantly being beat over the head with “you’ll go to hell if you are gay” resulted in promiscuity with many guys. Once I lived my truth as a lesbian, I actually grew closer to God and have been in a monogamous relationship for over 20 years. I was anxious and depressed when there was constant labeling. Gay people aren’t pushing for constant beating. Gay people would prefer to just exist. It’s everyone else being constantly concerned about our existence and making it a focal point.

[Anonymous]

So if the Supreme Court sides with the parents over the opting out, does that then stand for
all public schools in the U.S.? Sorry,
Trying to understand implications

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if the Supreme Court sides with the parents over the opting out, does that then stand for
all public schools in the U.S.? Sorry,
Trying to understand implications

It depends entirely how they write the decision. Previous posters want to argue that it only has to do with the lessons after the material. The truth is this could lead to the wide scale removal of materials from the classroom. What is the line for requiring an opt out? What about a teacher who has a same sex partner talking about what her family did over the weekend? Able to be opted out?

[Anonymous]

As a former teacher, I can assure you that the vast majority of us would just avoid teaching the material altogether rather than providing an opt-out and having to teach two lessons instead of one. There just isn't enough time in the day. And I'm also sure that this outcome -- teachers not teaching the material at all -- is exactly what is being sought by the plaintiffs.

[Anonymous]

FYI.

APRIL 22, 2025 - The Supreme Court Hears Case on LGBTQ Books in Public Schools

https://www.c-span.org/event/public-affairs-event/supreme-court-hears-case-on-lgbtq-books-in-public-schools/432473

[Anonymous]

Remember when in ~2003, anyone opposed to gay marriage was told it wouldn't affect them? The alarmists are not always wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember when in ~2003, anyone opposed to gay marriage was told it wouldn't affect them? The alarmists are not always wrong.

Wait. You're affected by acknowledgement that gay marriage exists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of you arguing that this is about religious freedom and not homophobia are strange. If a school taught a book where the main character eats pork, it would not be offensive to muslim or kosher students because they themselves aren't eating pork. Religious freedom is about what you do, not what the people around you do.

Wrong. The equivalent would be a school deliberately choosing to have teachers read a series of books about eating pork, and then launching a teacher-led classroom discussion about why it’s ok to eat pork, then saying parents can opt out from those lessons, and then rescinding that option under political pressure.

Get it now?

No it’s like reading a book where people are eating bacon for breakfast and asking to opt out because it’s pork.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember when in ~2003, anyone opposed to gay marriage was told it wouldn't affect them? The alarmists are not always wrong.

How does it affect you/them?