Ruling on MCPS LGBT curriculum case coming this morning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Late to the game here. So the main implication is that parents can keep kids home on the days any LGBTQ books are read? I'm a teacher and my worry is that schools will have to figure out a place for kids to be during that particular lesson. But heck yeah, if parents want to keep their kids home, then fine. I'll plan to do same sex family read alouds every Friday and the horrible families can find childcare for 20% of the year. Hope it bankrupts them.

This was my question too. The original ask was for MCPS to find and alternate lesson for the kids during this time, but if they are to stay home "unexcused"... I'd read same sex books every day.

We know the MoCo attorneys that represent MCPS are notoriously slow learners, but I really doubt even they are going to countenance retaliatory harassment against plaintiffs that just won at SCOTUS.

Reading books is not against the ruling.

Specifically reading LGBTQ books every day so that kids who are from religions you have animus towards don’t come to school is illegal. You will likely be fired well before it ever becomes a court case. Come on.

No it's not illegal.

Per Chat GPT because you won’t listen to me:

“The specific intent to financially harm religious families by daily readings aimed at driving attendance down is likely illegal, as it would constitute religious discrimination and retaliation. If a teacher implements this plan:
• They could face legal challenges and disciplinary actions.
• The school district would be violating both the Supreme Court’s opt‑out ruling and constitutional protections.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-sides-religious-parents-145321464.html

parents won.

If you don't want your kid to learn about science or see female teachers, then you can keep your kids at home, just like these parents.

The parents that demanded the school abide by their religion? They aren’t keeping their kids home. That’s the point.

The Supreme Court on June 27 sided with a group of parents who want to withdraw their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being read, another move that favors claims of religious discrimination over other values, like gay rights.

So I don't think supreme Court Justice is really understand the logistical challenges of having to offer compensatory educational opportunities every time a parent opts out

How is this a significant burden? They tell the child to pick a book of their choice and go to alternate location (reading corner, library, cafeteria, gym, etc.). If the child can’t read yet, they give them some paper and crayons and have them draw pictures. They could let kids work on homework or play educational games on the computer. Basically, they just need to provide minimal supervision and instructions on which self-directed activity they want the kids to do.

If they can make alternate arrangements for field trips when the teacher is off-site for the entire day, they should be able to arrange for kids to occupy themselves for the much shorter length of time that the teacher spends reading.

You think you can send a K out of the room to "they gym" with an assignment without supervision?

Well the court disagreed with you, they said it would be too many requests, and it was too much to ask the school to accommodate every bigotted whim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Late to the game here. So the main implication is that parents can keep kids home on the days any LGBTQ books are read? I'm a teacher and my worry is that schools will have to figure out a place for kids to be during that particular lesson. But heck yeah, if parents want to keep their kids home, then fine. I'll plan to do same sex family read alouds every Friday and the horrible families can find childcare for 20% of the year. Hope it bankrupts them.

This was my question too. The original ask was for MCPS to find and alternate lesson for the kids during this time, but if they are to stay home "unexcused"... I'd read same sex books every day.

We know the MoCo attorneys that represent MCPS are notoriously slow learners, but I really doubt even they are going to countenance retaliatory harassment against plaintiffs that just won at SCOTUS.

Reading books is not against the ruling.

Specifically reading LGBTQ books every day so that kids who are from religions you have animus towards don’t come to school is illegal. You will likely be fired well before it ever becomes a court case. Come on.

No it's not illegal.

Per Chat GPT because you won’t listen to me:

“The specific intent to financially harm religious families by daily readings aimed at driving attendance down is likely illegal, as it would constitute religious discrimination and retaliation. If a teacher implements this plan:
• They could face legal challenges and disciplinary actions.
• The school district would be violating both the Supreme Court’s opt‑out ruling and constitutional protections.”

From ChatGPT:
No, you don’t need to rewrite your curriculum to include religious people or teachings. But yes, due to the Supreme Court’s June 27, 2025 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, public schools must allow opt-outs for students whose families object on religious grounds to certain content—specifically LGBTQ+ storybooks or lessons—and must give advance notice when such material will be used

You cannot be fired solely for teaching state-approved curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ content, even if many parents choose to opt out due to religious reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Late to the game here. So the main implication is that parents can keep kids home on the days any LGBTQ books are read? I'm a teacher and my worry is that schools will have to figure out a place for kids to be during that particular lesson. But heck yeah, if parents want to keep their kids home, then fine. I'll plan to do same sex family read alouds every Friday and the horrible families can find childcare for 20% of the year. Hope it bankrupts them.

This was my question too. The original ask was for MCPS to find and alternate lesson for the kids during this time, but if they are to stay home "unexcused"... I'd read same sex books every day.

We know the MoCo attorneys that represent MCPS are notoriously slow learners, but I really doubt even they are going to countenance retaliatory harassment against plaintiffs that just won at SCOTUS.

Reading books is not against the ruling.

Specifically reading LGBTQ books every day so that kids who are from religions you have animus towards don’t come to school is illegal. You will likely be fired well before it ever becomes a court case. Come on.

No it's not illegal.

Per Chat GPT because you won’t listen to me:

“The specific intent to financially harm religious families by daily readings aimed at driving attendance down is likely illegal, as it would constitute religious discrimination and retaliation. If a teacher implements this plan:
• They could face legal challenges and disciplinary actions.
• The school district would be violating both the Supreme Court’s opt‑out ruling and constitutional protections.”

From ChatGPT:
No, you don’t need to rewrite your curriculum to include religious people or teachings. But yes, due to the Supreme Court’s June 27, 2025 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, public schools must allow opt-outs for students whose families object on religious grounds to certain content—specifically LGBTQ+ storybooks or lessons—and must give advance notice when such material will be used

You cannot be fired solely for teaching state-approved curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ content, even if many parents choose to opt out due to religious reasons.

But the debate wasn’t about rewriting curriculum. Reread the chain. The poster said she was going to change her curriculum on purpose in hopes families that she serves go bankrupt. You are introducing concepts not under discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there’s a lot of hyperbole here based on allowing parents to opt-out based on their religious beliefs, considering that as far as I can tell is allowed on EVERY other point parents wish to opt out of.

For example:

Sex Ed
Field Trips
Required Vaccinations (and I’m not talking about COVID)
Dissections
Attendance on religious holidays
Class parties
Saying the Pledge of Allegiance
Watching R-rated movies for instructional purposes

Parents can opt their kids put of dissections, but that hasn’t destroyed science education or eliminated instruction about evolution.

As for not having representation and having LGBT kids feeling alien, allowing an opt-out does the opposite. MCPS can have as much LGBT representation as they want, that can be the normal. Those whose parents opt out would be the ones alienated by having to separate themselves from the rest of the class doing the main activity. Do students in the standard sex-ed classes feel alienated if some students leave because their parents don’t want them to participate? If the other students notice at all, they probably think the kid opting out is the one whose family isn’t normal and may feel sorry for them, but I don’t think they view it as any sort of indictment on themselves.

These parents aren’t asking for anything other than what has long been the standard practice in education, the ability to opt their specific child out of activities that violate their moral/religious principles.

Now this is a common sense post on the actual facts!

But it's not what they asked for, they asked for an alternate education or at least a place for the kids to go during that portion of the education.

What the ruling said was NO you can't get an alternate school setting, but you can stay home.

Where does it say that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there’s a lot of hyperbole here based on allowing parents to opt-out based on their religious beliefs, considering that as far as I can tell is allowed on EVERY other point parents wish to opt out of.

For example:

Sex Ed
Field Trips
Required Vaccinations (and I’m not talking about COVID)
Dissections
Attendance on religious holidays
Class parties
Saying the Pledge of Allegiance
Watching R-rated movies for instructional purposes

Parents can opt their kids put of dissections, but that hasn’t destroyed science education or eliminated instruction about evolution.

As for not having representation and having LGBT kids feeling alien, allowing an opt-out does the opposite. MCPS can have as much LGBT representation as they want, that can be the normal. Those whose parents opt out would be the ones alienated by having to separate themselves from the rest of the class doing the main activity. Do students in the standard sex-ed classes feel alienated if some students leave because their parents don’t want them to participate? If the other students notice at all, they probably think the kid opting out is the one whose family isn’t normal and may feel sorry for them, but I don’t think they view it as any sort of indictment on themselves.

These parents aren’t asking for anything other than what has long been the standard practice in education, the ability to opt their specific child out of activities that violate their moral/religious principles.

Now this is a common sense post on the actual facts!

But it's not what they asked for, they asked for an alternate education or at least a place for the kids to go during that portion of the education.

What the ruling said was NO you can't get an alternate school setting, but you can stay home.

Where does it say that?

In the ruling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-sides-religious-parents-145321464.html

parents won.

If you don't want your kid to learn about science or see female teachers, then you can keep your kids at home, just like these parents.

No no the SC says that my kid can opt out of anything I find religiously objectionable. That includes female teachers. The school must make a male-only space for mg child.

No, SCOTUS said they can keep the kids home. You can too.

Can you point out where it says that the school does not have to offer alternatives and that parents opting out will keep kids home? I’m just reading “opt out” but the decision is very long so maybe I’m missing that part about staying home.

The original ask was that kids can opt out, be it leave the classroom or not go to school that day as an excused absence. MCPS initially agreed but then six months later rescinded that due to the many requests from parents.

Initially, the Board compromised with objecting parents
by notifying them when the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” story-
books would be taught and permitting their children to be
excused from instruction involving the books. That policy
was consistent with the Board’s general “Guidelines for Re-
specting Religious Diversity,” which at the time provided
that “[w]hen possible, schools should try to make reasona-
ble and feasible adjustments to the instructional program
to accommodate requests from students, or requests from
parents/guardians on behalf of their students, to be excused
from specific classroom discussions or activities that they
believe would impose a substantial burden on their reli-
gious beliefs.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 220a–221a

If you keep your kid at home due to your objection, that's an excused absence.

This is not an affirmative statement that the school does NOT need to provide an alternative. It just says they are excused from the activity. It doesn’t even say the kids can stay home with an excused absence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Late to the game here. So the main implication is that parents can keep kids home on the days any LGBTQ books are read? I'm a teacher and my worry is that schools will have to figure out a place for kids to be during that particular lesson. But heck yeah, if parents want to keep their kids home, then fine. I'll plan to do same sex family read alouds every Friday and the horrible families can find childcare for 20% of the year. Hope it bankrupts them.

This was my question too. The original ask was for MCPS to find and alternate lesson for the kids during this time, but if they are to stay home "unexcused"... I'd read same sex books every day.

We know the MoCo attorneys that represent MCPS are notoriously slow learners, but I really doubt even they are going to countenance retaliatory harassment against plaintiffs that just won at SCOTUS.

Reading books is not against the ruling.

Specifically reading LGBTQ books every day so that kids who are from religions you have animus towards don’t come to school is illegal. You will likely be fired well before it ever becomes a court case. Come on.

No it's not illegal.

Per Chat GPT because you won’t listen to me:

“The specific intent to financially harm religious families by daily readings aimed at driving attendance down is likely illegal, as it would constitute religious discrimination and retaliation. If a teacher implements this plan:
• They could face legal challenges and disciplinary actions.
• The school district would be violating both the Supreme Court’s opt‑out ruling and constitutional protections.”

From ChatGPT:
No, you don’t need to rewrite your curriculum to include religious people or teachings. But yes, due to the Supreme Court’s June 27, 2025 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, public schools must allow opt-outs for students whose families object on religious grounds to certain content—specifically LGBTQ+ storybooks or lessons—and must give advance notice when such material will be used

You cannot be fired solely for teaching state-approved curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ content, even if many parents choose to opt out due to religious reasons.

But the debate wasn’t about rewriting curriculum. Reread the chain. The poster said she was going to change her curriculum on purpose in hopes families that she serves go bankrupt. You are introducing concepts not under discussion.

Changing the actual books is not changing the curriculum. Do you even know what curriculum is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there’s a lot of hyperbole here based on allowing parents to opt-out based on their religious beliefs, considering that as far as I can tell is allowed on EVERY other point parents wish to opt out of.

For example:

Sex Ed
Field Trips
Required Vaccinations (and I’m not talking about COVID)
Dissections
Attendance on religious holidays
Class parties
Saying the Pledge of Allegiance
Watching R-rated movies for instructional purposes

Parents can opt their kids put of dissections, but that hasn’t destroyed science education or eliminated instruction about evolution.

As for not having representation and having LGBT kids feeling alien, allowing an opt-out does the opposite. MCPS can have as much LGBT representation as they want, that can be the normal. Those whose parents opt out would be the ones alienated by having to separate themselves from the rest of the class doing the main activity. Do students in the standard sex-ed classes feel alienated if some students leave because their parents don’t want them to participate? If the other students notice at all, they probably think the kid opting out is the one whose family isn’t normal and may feel sorry for them, but I don’t think they view it as any sort of indictment on themselves.

These parents aren’t asking for anything other than what has long been the standard practice in education, the ability to opt their specific child out of activities that violate their moral/religious principles.

Now this is a common sense post on the actual facts!

But it's not what they asked for, they asked for an alternate education or at least a place for the kids to go during that portion of the education.

What the ruling said was NO you can't get an alternate school setting, but you can stay home.

Where does it say that?

In the ruling.

Yes but where specifically? I’m not seeing the language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-sides-religious-parents-145321464.html

parents won.

If you don't want your kid to learn about science or see female teachers, then you can keep your kids at home, just like these parents.

No no the SC says that my kid can opt out of anything I find religiously objectionable. That includes female teachers. The school must make a male-only space for mg child.

No, SCOTUS said they can keep the kids home. You can too.

MCPS’ argument here was that it is excessively burdensome to notify every time a potentially objectionable book would be read and then to accommodate those who are opting out. The effect of this is going to be they just stop including these books.

But how will our kids survive without having "Pride Puppy" read aloud to them??

Not everyone wants curriculum choices driven by the lowest common denominator of what doesn’t bother nutjobs

Preciously. LGBTQ agenda nutjobs shouldn't be allowed to spread their proganda to 5 years old kids in MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t agree with parents who want to remove their kids from this portion of the curriculum, but I don’t think we should be limiting parents’ rights either. Honestly if you are shielding your kid this much from the true facts of how the world is, you’re not doing them any favors but it’s your right.

Shiedling 5 year old kids from LGBTQ agenda should be common sense. Anyone advicating to not do that is a nutjob.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Late to the game here. So the main implication is that parents can keep kids home on the days any LGBTQ books are read? I'm a teacher and my worry is that schools will have to figure out a place for kids to be during that particular lesson. But heck yeah, if parents want to keep their kids home, then fine. I'll plan to do same sex family read alouds every Friday and the horrible families can find childcare for 20% of the year. Hope it bankrupts them.

This was my question too. The original ask was for MCPS to find and alternate lesson for the kids during this time, but if they are to stay home "unexcused"... I'd read same sex books every day.

We know the MoCo attorneys that represent MCPS are notoriously slow learners, but I really doubt even they are going to countenance retaliatory harassment against plaintiffs that just won at SCOTUS.

Reading books is not against the ruling.

Specifically reading LGBTQ books every day so that kids who are from religions you have animus towards don’t come to school is illegal. You will likely be fired well before it ever becomes a court case. Come on.

No it's not illegal.

Per Chat GPT because you won’t listen to me:

“The specific intent to financially harm religious families by daily readings aimed at driving attendance down is likely illegal, as it would constitute religious discrimination and retaliation. If a teacher implements this plan:
• They could face legal challenges and disciplinary actions.
• The school district would be violating both the Supreme Court’s opt‑out ruling and constitutional protections.”

From ChatGPT:
No, you don’t need to rewrite your curriculum to include religious people or teachings. But yes, due to the Supreme Court’s June 27, 2025 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, public schools must allow opt-outs for students whose families object on religious grounds to certain content—specifically LGBTQ+ storybooks or lessons—and must give advance notice when such material will be used

You cannot be fired solely for teaching state-approved curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ content, even if many parents choose to opt out due to religious reasons.

But the debate wasn’t about rewriting curriculum. Reread the chain. The poster said she was going to change her curriculum on purpose in hopes families that she serves go bankrupt. You are introducing concepts not under discussion.

Changing the actual books is not changing the curriculum. Do you even know what curriculum is?

Your legal reasoning skills are so atrocious it’s hard for me to believe you are not a troll. No wonder your side keeps losing in court.

[Anonymous]

I’m the person asking where in the decision it says that opt out kids stay home with excused absences. I think that is the best solution, and I hope that is available for MCPS to implement. I would just like to confirm that it is an availability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-sides-religious-parents-145321464.html

parents won.

If you don't want your kid to learn about science or see female teachers, then you can keep your kids at home, just like these parents.

No no the SC says that my kid can opt out of anything I find religiously objectionable. That includes female teachers. The school must make a male-only space for mg child.

No, SCOTUS said they can keep the kids home. You can too.

Can you point out where it says that the school does not have to offer alternatives and that parents opting out will keep kids home? I’m just reading “opt out” but the decision is very long so maybe I’m missing that part about staying home.

The original ask was that kids can opt out, be it leave the classroom or not go to school that day as an excused absence. MCPS initially agreed but then six months later rescinded that due to the many requests from parents.

Initially, the Board compromised with objecting parents
by notifying them when the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” story-
books would be taught and permitting their children to be
excused from instruction involving the books. That policy
was consistent with the Board’s general “Guidelines for Re-
specting Religious Diversity,” which at the time provided
that “[w]hen possible, schools should try to make reasona-
ble and feasible adjustments to the instructional program
to accommodate requests from students, or requests from
parents/guardians on behalf of their students, to be excused
from specific classroom discussions or activities that they
believe would impose a substantial burden on their reli-
gious beliefs.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 220a–221a

If you keep your kid at home due to your objection, that's an excused absence.

This is not an affirmative statement that the school does NOT need to provide an alternative. It just says they are excused from the activity. It doesn’t even say the kids can stay home with an excused absence.

The school does not need to make alternate plans. So yes, you have to keep them home for that lesson. Sorry! Be careful what you ask for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Late to the game here. So the main implication is that parents can keep kids home on the days any LGBTQ books are read? I'm a teacher and my worry is that schools will have to figure out a place for kids to be during that particular lesson. But heck yeah, if parents want to keep their kids home, then fine. I'll plan to do same sex family read alouds every Friday and the horrible families can find childcare for 20% of the year. Hope it bankrupts them.

This was my question too. The original ask was for MCPS to find and alternate lesson for the kids during this time, but if they are to stay home "unexcused"... I'd read same sex books every day.

We know the MoCo attorneys that represent MCPS are notoriously slow learners, but I really doubt even they are going to countenance retaliatory harassment against plaintiffs that just won at SCOTUS.

Reading books is not against the ruling.

Specifically reading LGBTQ books every day so that kids who are from religions you have animus towards don’t come to school is illegal. You will likely be fired well before it ever becomes a court case. Come on.

No it's not illegal.

Per Chat GPT because you won’t listen to me:

“The specific intent to financially harm religious families by daily readings aimed at driving attendance down is likely illegal, as it would constitute religious discrimination and retaliation. If a teacher implements this plan:
• They could face legal challenges and disciplinary actions.
• The school district would be violating both the Supreme Court’s opt‑out ruling and constitutional protections.”

From ChatGPT:
No, you don’t need to rewrite your curriculum to include religious people or teachings. But yes, due to the Supreme Court’s June 27, 2025 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, public schools must allow opt-outs for students whose families object on religious grounds to certain content—specifically LGBTQ+ storybooks or lessons—and must give advance notice when such material will be used

You cannot be fired solely for teaching state-approved curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ content, even if many parents choose to opt out due to religious reasons.

But the debate wasn’t about rewriting curriculum. Reread the chain. The poster said she was going to change her curriculum on purpose in hopes families that she serves go bankrupt. You are introducing concepts not under discussion.

Changing the actual books is not changing the curriculum. Do you even know what curriculum is?

Your legal reasoning skills are so atrocious it’s hard for me to believe you are not a troll. No wonder your side keeps losing in court.

We won, you have to stay home.