Ruling on MCPS LGBT curriculum case coming this morning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe in two-parent families. I need to opt my child out of reading any book, including those of historical fact, if a family is mentioned or described that has two parents. My child will also not refer to any teachers as Mrs, since this signifies that they are married and could be a part of a two-parent family!

Sure, keep them at home if that's what your religion teaches you. SCOTUS says you have that right.

Unclear if SCOTUS requires an alternative option for every religious objection. Like if a parent didn’t want their kid to have female teachers.

[Anonymous]

There’s actually been a case about how religious parents didn’t want any books read to their child where a woman was working. Keeping female teachers employed is arguably supporting their lifestyle.

[Anonymous]

So when can the taxpayers know how much money was spent on legal fees for this???
Let’s talk about the budget again…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS SHOULD just have the opt out kids stay home when they are too young to be unsupervised.

That’s illegal, you can’t deny the child an education just because you want to push your DEI agenda. If the child wants to come to school they go to school. The end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So when can the taxpayers know how much money was spent on legal fees for this???
Let’s talk about the budget again…

A great question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The message that mcps just sent out to staff and families shows that mcps continues to miss the point.
I’d really like to know who drafted it.
“Chilling”

I thought their message was fine. What's the problem with saying "It also sends a chilling message to many valued members of our diverse community"?

Very tone deaf in light of the judgment, like they still think they’re right, and they lost. Some humility would’ve gone a long way. They just sound even more stupid now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS SHOULD just have the opt out kids stay home when they are too young to be unsupervised.

That’s illegal, you can’t deny the child an education just because you want to push your DEI agenda. If the child wants to come to school they go to school. The end.

No but they CHOOSE to opt out. They don’t want the education offered. Seems like the rational compromise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS SHOULD just have the opt out kids stay home when they are too young to be unsupervised.

That’s illegal, you can’t deny the child an education just because you want to push your DEI agenda. If the child wants to come to school they go to school. The end.

That is what the parent want….

[Anonymous]

What a WASTE of money and resources! They could’ve just hired an extra teacher to watch the opt out kids and saved a few million.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a WASTE of money and resources! They could’ve just hired an extra teacher to watch the opt out kids and saved a few million.

Oh but then they wouldn’t be able to compel other people to go along with their ideology

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS SHOULD just have the opt out kids stay home when they are too young to be unsupervised.

That’s illegal, you can’t deny the child an education just because you want to push your DEI agenda. If the child wants to come to school they go to school. The end.

I don’t think it is illegal and it’s something that the parents wanted, as described in the ruling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe in two-parent families. I need to opt my child out of reading any book, including those of historical fact, if a family is mentioned or described that has two parents. My child will also not refer to any teachers as Mrs, since this signifies that they are married and could be a part of a two-parent family!

Sure, keep them at home if that's what your religion teaches you. SCOTUS says you have that right.

Unclear if SCOTUS requires an alternative option for every religious objection. Like if a parent didn’t want their kid to have female teachers.

Part of the request was to opt out, but MCPS stated if you do that it would be an unexcused absence. SCOTUS effectively stated if you opt out, it's an excused absence.

Work on your critical reasoning skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So when can the taxpayers know how much money was spent on legal fees for this???
Let’s talk about the budget again…

I’m a taxpayer and good with the money spent on sensing a message of support to an extremely marginalized community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s actually been a case about how religious parents didn’t want any books read to their child where a woman was working. Keeping female teachers employed is arguably supporting their lifestyle.

Sure, you should keep your kid at home. I think everyone would appreciate that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe in two-parent families. I need to opt my child out of reading any book, including those of historical fact, if a family is mentioned or described that has two parents. My child will also not refer to any teachers as Mrs, since this signifies that they are married and could be a part of a two-parent family!

Sure, keep them at home if that's what your religion teaches you. SCOTUS says you have that right.

Unclear if SCOTUS requires an alternative option for every religious objection. Like if a parent didn’t want their kid to have female teachers.

Part of the request was to opt out, but MCPS stated if you do that it would be an unexcused absence. SCOTUS effectively stated if you opt out, it's an excused absence.

Work on your critical reasoning skills.

Is that MCPS stance going forward?

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy so criticizing my reasoning skills while doing so is ironic.