Glad MCPS is getting sued

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Parents should always have a say in what their kids are learning. Ideally, their day can be to leave this crazy system but not vv everyone can afford that. Parents should be able to opt out of having their two and three year olds use a word search to find words like drag in story books being read to them.

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/3-montgomery-county-families-sue-mcps-over-lbtq-books.amp

Being LGBTQ is legal. Same-sex marriage is recognized. YOU SHOULD GET ZERO SAY whether the books your child reads for school has examples of or teaches about same-sex couples or LGBTQ people. It's the same as if you don't want them to read a book with an interracial couple in it. It's simply not your right to demand it. Our world accepts this whether you want it to or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents should always have a say in what their kids are learning. Ideally, their day can be to leave this crazy system but not vv everyone can afford that. Parents should be able to opt out of having their two and three year olds use a word search to find words like drag in story books being read to them.

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/3-montgomery-county-families-sue-mcps-over-lbtq-books.amp

Being LGBTQ is legal. Same-sex marriage is recognized. YOU SHOULD GET ZERO SAY whether the books your child reads for school has examples of or teaches about same-sex couples or LGBTQ people. It's the same as if you don't want them to read a book with an interracial couple in it. It's simply not your right to demand it. Our world accepts this whether you want it to or not.

They have a right to demand it. What they don't have, is a right to get what they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of these books are problematic and I can understand why parents want to opt-out. I think MCPS has a good chance of losing based on freedom of religion grounds.

My daughter was forced to read a Boy Named Penelope and we don't agree with the viewpoints expressed in that book. I think it's dangerous for MCPS to take a stance on gender theory. None of this stuff is settled and we are very much in the throes of a societal debate about it, so people acting like people who disagree are neanderthals are wrong. There's lots of room for shades of gray here, but the activists won't allow it.

I think they are opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students. The religious right doesn't get to decide for everyone any more and they are having a hissy fit about it.

They are not opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students because Muslim parents are TELLING you these books and teachings about LGBTQ sexual norms and family structures VIOLATE their faith. They're not the only ones who this applies to.

You can't say you're inclusive for all when a significant chunk of students, who are Muslim or more conservative Christian, tell you this violates their faith. You're choosing to offend some to please others. And that's fine. But that's NOT inclusive and is the opposite of that.

LGBTQ "sexual norms" like getting married. Or existing.

In any case, if you're saying that MCPS is excluding Muslim people by including LGBTQ people, that's just factually incorrect. How do I know this? Because there are Muslim people who are LGBTQ (or LGBTQ people who are Muslim, whichever way around you want to have it). "Pride Puppy!" is not an anti-Muslim book, or an anti-Christian book, or an anti-anybody book, except maybe anti- people who don't like rainbows or puppies.

MCPS is excluding Muslim people because they are forcing material on them that offends them, makes them uncomfortable, and violates their religious beliefs. It's really that simple so I don't know why you don't get it.

Read the lawsuit. I think the parents suing explain their stance quite well.

It doesn't violate their religious beliefs to hear that gay people exist (and that they get married or have parades). It may violate their religion for them to engage in same-sex sexual activities, or to fund such activities, or to marry a person of the same sex. But no one is requiring their kids to do that. It's not like they are being required to eat bacon at school, or required to kiss someone of the same sex, or required to do tequila shots, or anything else that might actually violate their religion. It's really that simple, so I don't know why you don't get it.

It's the equivalent of bacon and pork month being celebrated at school, with required readings about how good it is to eat pig meat. It's not incidental to the lesson, it is the lesson. Why should they not be allowed to opt out of this lesson?

We are forced to hear plenty of lessons about how wheat is very good, despite that my child cannot consume it. We disagree and move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Thank you to whoever posted the law suit.

150. Indeed, a poll by the Washington Post and University of Maryland showed
that, among registered voters, sixty-six percent of Marylanders disapproved of
Case 8:23-cv-01380-TJS Document 1 Filed 05/24/23
schoolteachers discussing LGBTQ issues with students from kindergarten through
third grade. Nicole Asbury and Emily Guskin, Most Md. voters say elementary school
discussion of LGBTQ acceptance ‘inappropriate,’ The Washington Post (Oct. 12,
2022), https://perma.cc/6NED-E9RH.

151. Fifty-six percent disapproved for fourth and fifth graders. Id.

152. Even for middle schoolers, forty-two percent of voters disapproved. Id.

153. Only for high schoolers, did a strong majority support such conversations,
with only twenty-seven percent of voters disapproving. Id

https://becketnewsite.s3.amazonaws.com/20230524130022/Complaint-in-Mahmoud-v.-McKnight.pdf

The three sets of parents involved in the lawsuit also want the public to pay for their private-school tuition because they are so unalterably opposed to their children being exposed in public school to books that have LGBTQ people in them.

283. The Parents also have or may in the future suffer monetary damages in being forced to pursue other educational opportunities for their children because of the Board’s disregard for their state rights.

The lawsuit doesn't say anything about the parents' beliefs about their children being exposed in public school to LGBTQ people. For example, both of my children in MCPS have had gay teachers, who occasionally mention their spouses in class just like the non-gay teachers do. Is that also the Board disregarding the parents' state rights? Or is it ok for the children to have teachers who are gay, but not ok for the children to read books about teachers who are gay?

I wonder if any of the children of the three sets of parents involved in the lawsuit are even still enrolled in MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of these books are problematic and I can understand why parents want to opt-out. I think MCPS has a good chance of losing based on freedom of religion grounds.

My daughter was forced to read a Boy Named Penelope and we don't agree with the viewpoints expressed in that book. I think it's dangerous for MCPS to take a stance on gender theory. None of this stuff is settled and we are very much in the throes of a societal debate about it, so people acting like people who disagree are neanderthals are wrong. There's lots of room for shades of gray here, but the activists won't allow it.

I think they are opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students. The religious right doesn't get to decide for everyone any more and they are having a hissy fit about it.

They are not opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students because Muslim parents are TELLING you these books and teachings about LGBTQ sexual norms and family structures VIOLATE their faith. They're not the only ones who this applies to.

You can't say you're inclusive for all when a significant chunk of students, who are Muslim or more conservative Christian, tell you this violates their faith. You're choosing to offend some to please others. And that's fine. But that's NOT inclusive and is the opposite of that.

LGBTQ "sexual norms" like getting married. Or existing.

In any case, if you're saying that MCPS is excluding Muslim people by including LGBTQ people, that's just factually incorrect. How do I know this? Because there are Muslim people who are LGBTQ (or LGBTQ people who are Muslim, whichever way around you want to have it). "Pride Puppy!" is not an anti-Muslim book, or an anti-Christian book, or an anti-anybody book, except maybe anti- people who don't like rainbows or puppies.

MCPS is excluding Muslim people because they are forcing material on them that offends them, makes them uncomfortable, and violates their religious beliefs. It's really that simple so I don't know why you don't get it.

Read the lawsuit. I think the parents suing explain their stance quite well.

It doesn't violate their religious beliefs to hear that gay people exist (and that they get married or have parades). It may violate their religion for them to engage in same-sex sexual activities, or to fund such activities, or to marry a person of the same sex. But no one is requiring their kids to do that. It's not like they are being required to eat bacon at school, or required to kiss someone of the same sex, or required to do tequila shots, or anything else that might actually violate their religion. It's really that simple, so I don't know why you don't get it.

It's the equivalent of bacon and pork month being celebrated at school, with required readings about how good it is to eat pig meat. It's not incidental to the lesson, it is the lesson. Why should they not be allowed to opt out of this lesson?

Wasn't there just public testimony at a BoE meeting this month from a fourth-grader who is a vegetarian and wants the field trip in Close Encounters With Agriculture to not just say YAY BEEF but also mention that some religions don't eat beef and that raising beef cattle has harmful effects on the climate? Maybe he should have filed a lawsuit instead?

https://extension.umd.edu/resource/close-encounters-agriculture

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents should always have a say in what their kids are learning. Ideally, their day can be to leave this crazy system but not vv everyone can afford that. Parents should be able to opt out of having their two and three year olds use a word search to find words like drag in story books being read to them.

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/3-montgomery-county-families-sue-mcps-over-lbtq-books.amp

Being LGBTQ is legal. Same-sex marriage is recognized. YOU SHOULD GET ZERO SAY whether the books your child reads for school has examples of or teaches about same-sex couples or LGBTQ people. It's the same as if you don't want them to read a book with an interracial couple in it. It's simply not your right to demand it. Our world accepts this whether you want it to or not.

+1 What people don't seem to understand is that there are THOUSANDS of approved books in the MCPS curriculum. Any given classroom or library may or may not have one of these five. Any given teacher may or may not choose to use one of them as a read-aloud. But I, as a parent, do not have the right to object to how the school/teacher chooses to stock their library within the universe of approved books.

There are people who oppose integrated marriage, but integrated marriage is legal so they cannot refuse to let their child have access to that book.

There are people who oppose pork consumption, but it is legal so they can't refuse to let their child have access to a book in which a kid eats bacon.

The plaintiffs want to apply a different standard to age-appropriate books that show same-sex couples, but they can't do that because sexual orientation is a protected class in Maryland.

So, if you are going to allow a book (again, among thousands approved for the grade level) that includes opposite sex partners, you cannot disallow a book about that includes opposite sex partners.

Even if this case makes it to federal court, years from now, and even if sexual orientation still isn't a protected class at the federal level, the matter at hand remains the same. A fairly elected school board oversees a central office that chooses the books that can be included in the district's classrooms. That school board chose to include books that have same sex couples. The legal question is: Is that within their rights? The answer is a clear yes from the legal standpoint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope they win. I'm fine with my kid learning this stuff, but we also have to be fine with people who want to opt out. Not everyone can afford private school.

Who want to opt out of what, exactly? Reading books in school?

Yes. Put them in the school library. Don’t make them part of lesson plans, though. If they are, kids should be allowed to opt out.

Books should be in school libraries only. There should not be any books in lesson plans. If there are books in lessons plans, kids should be allowed to opt out. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope they win. I'm fine with my kid learning this stuff, but we also have to be fine with people who want to opt out. Not everyone can afford private school.

Who want to opt out of what, exactly? Reading books in school?

Yes. Put them in the school library. Don’t make them part of lesson plans, though. If they are, kids should be allowed to opt out.

Books should be in school libraries only. There should not be any books in lesson plans. If there are books in lessons plans, kids should be allowed to opt out. Got it.

Time for you to find a new hobby.

[Anonymous]

I would do a quick deep dive into the parents of the children their children want to be friends with. They might be same sex parents, single parents or G-d forbid divorced! You think books are dangerous…try actually people!!!!!🤪

[Anonymous]

I can't believe only 6 parents are permitted to launch this suit. Honestly it should be 600 parents before that happens.

Either way its a total FARCE and waste of time and money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents should always have a say in what their kids are learning. Ideally, their day can be to leave this crazy system but not vv everyone can afford that. Parents should be able to opt out of having their two and three year olds use a word search to find words like drag in story books being read to them.

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/3-montgomery-county-families-sue-mcps-over-lbtq-books.amp

No, they shouldn’t.

+1. It may sound good but I don't want some yahoo deciding what their kids can and can't read. That affects my kids too. If they don't like these books, they can always opt out.

They can’t. That’s why they are being sued.

They can. They can opt out of public school.

Cool so only rich people have rights.

I swear, you parents complain about everything. You are all too involved. Public school is not a specialty school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe only 6 parents are permitted to launch this suit. Honestly it should be 600 parents before that happens.

Either way its a total FARCE and waste of time and money.

X10000000000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe only 6 parents are permitted to launch this suit. Honestly it should be 600 parents before that happens.

Either way its a total FARCE and waste of time and money.

X10000000000

I just hope they get strapped with the court costs. I hate to think tax dollars are subsidizing bigotry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents should always have a say in what their kids are learning. Ideally, their day can be to leave this crazy system but not vv everyone can afford that. Parents should be able to opt out of having their two and three year olds use a word search to find words like drag in story books being read to them.

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/3-montgomery-county-families-sue-mcps-over-lbtq-books.amp

No, they shouldn’t.

+1. It may sound good but I don't want some yahoo deciding what their kids can and can't read. That affects my kids too. If they don't like these books, they can always opt out.

"Yahoo?" How about we insert the words "trans" media specialist? Would you be okay with that person making decisions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents should always have a say in what their kids are learning. Ideally, their day can be to leave this crazy system but not vv everyone can afford that. Parents should be able to opt out of having their two and three year olds use a word search to find words like drag in story books being read to them.

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/3-montgomery-county-families-sue-mcps-over-lbtq-books.amp

No, they shouldn’t.

+1. It may sound good but I don't want some yahoo deciding what their kids can and can't read. That affects my kids too. If they don't like these books, they can always opt out.

"Yahoo?" How about we insert the words "trans" media specialist? Would you be okay with that person making decisions?

If someone employed as a media specialist happens to be trans, why shouldn't they be making decisions about books in a school's media center? That is literally their job.