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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. What the people who brought this suit don’t understand is that mandating this education was helping their cause, not hurting it. Having the weirdest, most cringe middle school teacher heavy-handedly preaching to kids about how they are mandated to think essentially just has the effect of turning kids in the exact opposite direction.

The younger half of Gen Z — the ones who got these lessons — are sharply more conservative (particularly socially) than their older peers. That is not a coincidence.

Bar the lessons, and you make them cool again. Not that these plaintiffs understand kids, of course.

I think what you’re saying is that you have to pick your battles. Yes, but that is a two way street. Require the lesson and you’ll accelerate parents moving on to private and sectarian schools as well as home schooling—reducing funding to public schools and further eroding support for public schools.

So we should continue to make LGBTQ kids and family hide and pretend they don’t exist? Just so some small population can potentially not do what has been done throughout history, segregate itself until such time as they come to realize, oh these lessons really don’t do anything more than make individuals reflective and tolerant.

THIS x 100000000000000

We should not be catering to the prejudices of the lowest denominator. These people EXIST and shouldn't be treated like they are a dirty secret. Take their bigotry to their churches where (as I have experienced firsthand) that sort of thing is generally tolerated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. What the people who brought this suit don’t understand is that mandating this education was helping their cause, not hurting it. Having the weirdest, most cringe middle school teacher heavy-handedly preaching to kids about how they are mandated to think essentially just has the effect of turning kids in the exact opposite direction.

The younger half of Gen Z — the ones who got these lessons — are sharply more conservative (particularly socially) than their older peers. That is not a coincidence.

Bar the lessons, and you make them cool again. Not that these plaintiffs understand kids, of course.

I think what you’re saying is that you have to pick your battles. Yes, but that is a two way street. Require the lesson and you’ll accelerate parents moving on to private and sectarian schools as well as home schooling—reducing funding to public schools and further eroding support for public schools.

So we should continue to make LGBTQ kids and family hide and pretend they don’t exist? Just so some small population can potentially not do what has been done throughout history, segregate itself until such time as they come to realize, oh these lessons really don’t do anything more than make individuals reflective and tolerant.

THIS x 100000000000000

We should not be catering to the prejudices of the lowest denominator. These people EXIST and shouldn't be treated like they are a dirty secret. Take their bigotry to their churches where (as I have experienced firsthand) that sort of thing is generally tolerated.

Child sex predators exist too. When do we introduce children to this marginalized community's touching stories of devoted pursuit of minors?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. What the people who brought this suit don’t understand is that mandating this education was helping their cause, not hurting it. Having the weirdest, most cringe middle school teacher heavy-handedly preaching to kids about how they are mandated to think essentially just has the effect of turning kids in the exact opposite direction.

The younger half of Gen Z — the ones who got these lessons — are sharply more conservative (particularly socially) than their older peers. That is not a coincidence.

Bar the lessons, and you make them cool again. Not that these plaintiffs understand kids, of course.

I think what you’re saying is that you have to pick your battles. Yes, but that is a two way street. Require the lesson and you’ll accelerate parents moving on to private and sectarian schools as well as home schooling—reducing funding to public schools and further eroding support for public schools.

So we should continue to make LGBTQ kids and family hide and pretend they don’t exist? Just so some small population can potentially not do what has been done throughout history, segregate itself until such time as they come to realize, oh these lessons really don’t do anything more than make individuals reflective and tolerant.

Just like religion, don't discuss it in schools. No need. Just stick to academics.

People discuss religion in school. It is unavoidable. History has lots of connections to religion, the puritans moved to America for religiously motivated reasons, the US expanded our west due to religiously motivated ideology, people justified slavery due to religious reasons. Religion is completely unavoidable in school and romance is an unavoidable as well. Are we going to ban middle schoolers from reading Romeo and Juliet too? Should elementary school students be unable to read a fiction book with magic in it because it offends some religions? Allowing religious exemptions for everything because it offends someone is a recipe for disaster. It will make public schools completely unable to teach anything. If you are really that sensitive and can’t handle your children being exposed to anything that disagrees with your worldview send your kids to a private school that follows your religion.

Or we can just go back to before Maryland instituted this controversial curriculum. It was working before just fine.

This is not Maryland as a whole it was a single school district. I am gay and I have children. Even I would not be enthusiastic or supportive my kid reading some of these books. However, the potential implications of this court ruling are incredibly wide-reaching and they will extend well beyond this narrow topic of LGBT+ content in schools. Allowing religious opt outs and exemptions more broadly threatens the function of public schools entirely by creating a never ending rabbit hole of parents rejecting to any public school curriculum or content on religious grounds. Does this mean that parents can opt out of lessons on earth science, or the solar system because it offends their religious belief that world is around 6,000 years old? Parents get to opt out of genetics lessons because their religion does not believe in evolution? Can I opt my kid out of reading any book that has a single mother in it because I believe that that is irredeemably immoral? If I am part of an obscure religious sect that believes cancer can only be cured with prayer am I allowed to opt my kids out lessons on modern medicine? Can I opt out of a lesson that mentions a couple in an interracial marriage because my religion believes that it is wrong. Can an a secular family opt out of any history lessons that mention religion because they don’t want their children exposed to it. Ruling in favor of the plaintiffs will completely destroy public schools by creating an unworkable religious opt out that prevents teachers from teaching basically everything.

[Anonymous]

Yikes, this takedown of the MoCo attorney by Gorsuch was brutal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yikes, this takedown of the MoCo attorney by Gorsuch was brutal.

Unreal that *anyone* would think that book is appropriate for the classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. What the people who brought this suit don’t understand is that mandating this education was helping their cause, not hurting it. Having the weirdest, most cringe middle school teacher heavy-handedly preaching to kids about how they are mandated to think essentially just has the effect of turning kids in the exact opposite direction.

The younger half of Gen Z — the ones who got these lessons — are sharply more conservative (particularly socially) than their older peers. That is not a coincidence.

Bar the lessons, and you make them cool again. Not that these plaintiffs understand kids, of course.

I think what you’re saying is that you have to pick your battles. Yes, but that is a two way street. Require the lesson and you’ll accelerate parents moving on to private and sectarian schools as well as home schooling—reducing funding to public schools and further eroding support for public schools.

So we should continue to make LGBTQ kids and family hide and pretend they don’t exist? Just so some small population can potentially not do what has been done throughout history, segregate itself until such time as they come to realize, oh these lessons really don’t do anything more than make individuals reflective and tolerant.

THIS x 100000000000000

We should not be catering to the prejudices of the lowest denominator. These people EXIST and shouldn't be treated like they are a dirty secret. Take their bigotry to their churches where (as I have experienced firsthand) that sort of thing is generally tolerated.

Child sex predators exist too. When do we introduce children to this marginalized community's touching stories of devoted pursuit of minors?

You are equating gay people to sex predators????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents in Montgomery Count, Maryland, want to be able to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/lgbtq-books-supreme-court-montgomery-maryland-schools-religion/

Why can't these a$$holes just go to parochial school? You cannot dictate public education according to religion. Nor should you.

But that is exactly what MCPS is doing. It is just a different religion; one they believe in and evangelize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yikes, this takedown of the MoCo attorney by Gorsuch was brutal.

Unreal that *anyone* would think that book is appropriate for the classroom.

What was inappropriate? A woman in a leather skirt?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents in Montgomery Count, Maryland, want to be able to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/lgbtq-books-supreme-court-montgomery-maryland-schools-religion/

Why can't these a$$holes just go to parochial school? You cannot dictate public education according to religion. Nor should you.

But that is exactly what MCPS is doing. It is just a different religion; one they believe in and evangelize.

The religion of people exist?

[Anonymous]

I'm curious if the Supreme Court will require MCPS to enable parents to opt out of LGBTQ+ books just in ES, or in MS and HS as well. Our MCPS MS has one LGBTQ+ book per year of required reading, and I know there are LGBTQ+ core texts in HS as well. In the end I think it'll just mean that teachers drop those books if the opt out makes it too unwieldy to teach the material, especially since so much is done in whole-class instruction in secondary English.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents in Montgomery Count, Maryland, want to be able to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/lgbtq-books-supreme-court-montgomery-maryland-schools-religion/

Why can't these a$$holes just go to parochial school? You cannot dictate public education according to religion. Nor should you.

If you saw the crowds it was a wide number of recent immigrants and those of various religons of a conservative bent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents in Montgomery Count, Maryland, want to be able to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/lgbtq-books-supreme-court-montgomery-maryland-schools-religion/

Why can't these a$$holes just go to parochial school? You cannot dictate public education according to religion. Nor should you.

But that is exactly what MCPS is doing. It is just a different religion; one they believe in and evangelize.

The religion of people exist?

Trans ideology functions like a religion because it’s built on unverifiable beliefs, demands moral obedience, and punishes dissent. The core claim—that gender identity is an inner truth disconnected from biology—can’t be proven, only accepted on faith. Misgendering is treated as a moral sin, questioning the doctrine is labeled as hate, and dissenters face social and professional excommunication.

Like religion, it has sacred rituals (name changes, pronoun declarations), symbols (flags), and even holy days (Trans Day of Remembrance). It enforces ideological conformity in schools, media, and law. This isn’t just a personal identity movement—it’s a belief system demanding cultural and institutional submission.

[Anonymous]

The only way to fight homophobia is get to kids early and educate the hate out of them. Then of course small-minded Republican parents complain that we’re talking to their little kids about sex. But we can’t talk about gayness without at least a small nod to sexual preference. Republicans need to chill oit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only way to fight homophobia is get to kids early and educate the hate out of them. Then of course small-minded Republican parents complain that we’re talking to their little kids about sex. But we can’t talk about gayness without at least a small nod to sexual preference. Republicans need to chill oit.

God, we are never going to win another election, are we?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents in Montgomery Count, Maryland, want to be able to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/lgbtq-books-supreme-court-montgomery-maryland-schools-religion/

Why can't these a$$holes just go to parochial school? You cannot dictate public education according to religion. Nor should you.

The parents in question were Muslim so I think they would send their kids to an Islamic school. But that’s just an aside.

Public education has been co-opted and enlisted as a tool to teach preferred social norms. Perhaps that was feasible 70 years ago. But now we are much more diverse and multicultural. What shared social values really exist in a multicultural society? Especially one that ostensibly protects minority rights? Why does the LGTBQ kid get to be affirmed but not the Muslim kid when a neutral option is available?

Pride Puppy is a rhyming alphabet book. Certainly you can teach a rhyming alphabet book that doesn’t incorporate Pride or that is centered on a Catholic wedding ceremony, right? The selection of the book was intentional and parents are asserting their rights. If you want public education to be welcoming to all then make it so.