Ruling on MCPS LGBT curriculum case coming this morning

[Anonymous]

Okay, I understand that some posters feel (strongly) that teaching kids tolerance is the “right” course of action and if parents disagree with the MCPS curriculum, it is because they are ignorant bigots and therefore their kids are the ones who most need the tolerance curriculum to overcome the intolerance that their parents are teaching them.

HOWEVER, what happens when the school thinks that the “right” curriculum does NOT agree with YOUR beliefs? Hypothetically, let’s say that Trump turns full dictator, imposes a new curriculum, and puts Elon Musk in charge of the new Family Life curriculum. Not only does he immediately throw out all of these “DEI” books, but he starts saying that women should be breeders and wants America to go full Handmaids Tale. While the school might claim that this approach is now the “right” curriculum, I suspect most of us would disagree. Should parents have the right to opt out their children from instruction that runs contrary to their own religious/moral/ethical beliefs?

This thread is oddly similar to the problem the Republicans are having because they prioritized their political goals over due process and adherence to the Constitution. The ends does not justify the means. Whatever specific goals you achieve, if you have infringed on someone else’s rights in the process, you have opened the door to have those goals reversed when an opponent uses those same methods to infringe on your rights. Thus, unless you intend to completely ignore all rights and allow your side to become a dictatorship, itself, you have to assume any gains you have achieved may be temporary and ultimately you could find yourself at a disadvantage. If you are prepared to accept a dictator, then you have bigger problems because history has consistently demonstrated that the dictator does not care for the people he claimed to represent, only himself. Regardless of what issues he embraced for his political advantage, the only issue he cares about is himself. Once a dictator has secured power, not only do official policies become subservient to his whims, but he will often turn against his biggest supporters lest they become a threat to his individual interests.

It is vital, now more than ever, that we ensure that everyone’s right’s are protected, ESPECIALLY those we disagree with. Even if their viewpoint is completely and utterly wrong, they have the right (at least for now) to be wrong. This is the social pact we are mutually bound by as a free society. We ensure the rights of others so that others are obligated to respect ours. (The fact that others may be violating their civic responsibilities does not excuse us from ours, but means we have to take on a greater burden to make sure that the rights of all are honored.)

Something that made a huge impression on me when I first learned about it and I think is worth reflecting on now is that John Adams, one of the driving forces behind America’s independence and known for his strong temperament, defended the British soldiers arrested for the Boston Massacre. Public opinion was so overwhelmingly against the them that most lawyers simply refused to represent them. Nonetheless, Adams not only took their cases, he argued them so vigorously that of the 9 British soldiers (all of whom had been charged with murder and were facing the death penalty), 7 were completely acquitted, while the other 2 were convicted of the reduced crime of manslaughter and were sentenced to the reduced penalty of having their thumbs branded.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/boston-massacre-trial.htm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I understand that some posters feel (strongly) that teaching kids tolerance is the “right” course of action and if parents disagree with the MCPS curriculum, it is because they are ignorant bigots and therefore their kids are the ones who most need the tolerance curriculum to overcome the intolerance that their parents are teaching them.

HOWEVER, what happens when the school thinks that the “right” curriculum does NOT agree with YOUR beliefs? Hypothetically, let’s say that Trump turns full dictator, imposes a new curriculum, and puts Elon Musk in charge of the new Family Life curriculum. Not only does he immediately throw out all of these “DEI” books, but he starts saying that women should be breeders and wants America to go full Handmaids Tale. While the school might claim that this approach is now the “right” curriculum, I suspect most of us would disagree. Should parents have the right to opt out their children from instruction that runs contrary to their own religious/moral/ethical beliefs?

This thread is oddly similar to the problem the Republicans are having because they prioritized their political goals over due process and adherence to the Constitution. The ends does not justify the means. Whatever specific goals you achieve, if you have infringed on someone else’s rights in the process, you have opened the door to have those goals reversed when an opponent uses those same methods to infringe on your rights. Thus, unless you intend to completely ignore all rights and allow your side to become a dictatorship, itself, you have to assume any gains you have achieved may be temporary and ultimately you could find yourself at a disadvantage. If you are prepared to accept a dictator, then you have bigger problems because history has consistently demonstrated that the dictator does not care for the people he claimed to represent, only himself. Regardless of what issues he embraced for his political advantage, the only issue he cares about is himself. Once a dictator has secured power, not only do official policies become subservient to his whims, but he will often turn against his biggest supporters lest they become a threat to his individual interests.

It is vital, now more than ever, that we ensure that everyone’s right’s are protected, ESPECIALLY those we disagree with. Even if their viewpoint is completely and utterly wrong, they have the right (at least for now) to be wrong. This is the social pact we are mutually bound by as a free society. We ensure the rights of others so that others are obligated to respect ours. (The fact that others may be violating their civic responsibilities does not excuse us from ours, but means we have to take on a greater burden to make sure that the rights of all are honored.)

Something that made a huge impression on me when I first learned about it and I think is worth reflecting on now is that John Adams, one of the driving forces behind America’s independence and known for his strong temperament, defended the British soldiers arrested for the Boston Massacre. Public opinion was so overwhelmingly against the them that most lawyers simply refused to represent them. Nonetheless, Adams not only took their cases, he argued them so vigorously that of the 9 British soldiers (all of whom had been charged with murder and were facing the death penalty), 7 were completely acquitted, while the other 2 were convicted of the reduced crime of manslaughter and were sentenced to the reduced penalty of having their thumbs branded.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/boston-massacre-trial.htm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre

Tldr

[Anonymous]

Do I have a right to have my child have only male teachers and to not see female teachers? Becuz religion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP but not addressing the substance is not making you look like some brilliant legal mind.

It is illegal for a public servant to purposely bankrupt people xir serves because of religious animus. Trying to pretend that reading the same books (a fact ostensibly made up mod argument) dramatically more frequently on specific inconvenient days or even every day doesn’t change this it is evidence of it. You are wasting our time with stupid arguments. Shame on me for taking the bait and responding again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Responses like this are why people note that the school curriculum, particularly at the elementary school years, is about reading, writing, and math. I don’t want money spent on sending a message. Please hire more teachers so kids can get more individualized attention on academics.

And by having teachers have to sort kids by religiousness and teaching multiple tracks is hurting the teachers ability to focus on academics. Why are you guys not getting this? They should just have the opt out kids stay home for anything they find objectionable.

Why are you not getting that MCPS lost a lot more by fighting rather than pulling down these books or allowing opt-outs for the elementary schoolers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I understand that some posters feel (strongly) that teaching kids tolerance is the “right” course of action and if parents disagree with the MCPS curriculum, it is because they are ignorant bigots and therefore their kids are the ones who most need the tolerance curriculum to overcome the intolerance that their parents are teaching them.

HOWEVER, what happens when the school thinks that the “right” curriculum does NOT agree with YOUR beliefs? Hypothetically, let’s say that Trump turns full dictator, imposes a new curriculum, and puts Elon Musk in charge of the new Family Life curriculum. Not only does he immediately throw out all of these “DEI” books, but he starts saying that women should be breeders and wants America to go full Handmaids Tale. While the school might claim that this approach is now the “right” curriculum, I suspect most of us would disagree. Should parents have the right to opt out their children from instruction that runs contrary to their own religious/moral/ethical beliefs?

This thread is oddly similar to the problem the Republicans are having because they prioritized their political goals over due process and adherence to the Constitution. The ends does not justify the means. Whatever specific goals you achieve, if you have infringed on someone else’s rights in the process, you have opened the door to have those goals reversed when an opponent uses those same methods to infringe on your rights. Thus, unless you intend to completely ignore all rights and allow your side to become a dictatorship, itself, you have to assume any gains you have achieved may be temporary and ultimately you could find yourself at a disadvantage. If you are prepared to accept a dictator, then you have bigger problems because history has consistently demonstrated that the dictator does not care for the people he claimed to represent, only himself. Regardless of what issues he embraced for his political advantage, the only issue he cares about is himself. Once a dictator has secured power, not only do official policies become subservient to his whims, but he will often turn against his biggest supporters lest they become a threat to his individual interests.

It is vital, now more than ever, that we ensure that everyone’s right’s are protected, ESPECIALLY those we disagree with. Even if their viewpoint is completely and utterly wrong, they have the right (at least for now) to be wrong. This is the social pact we are mutually bound by as a free society. We ensure the rights of others so that others are obligated to respect ours. (The fact that others may be violating their civic responsibilities does not excuse us from ours, but means we have to take on a greater burden to make sure that the rights of all are honored.)

Something that made a huge impression on me when I first learned about it and I think is worth reflecting on now is that John Adams, one of the driving forces behind America’s independence and known for his strong temperament, defended the British soldiers arrested for the Boston Massacre. Public opinion was so overwhelmingly against the them that most lawyers simply refused to represent them. Nonetheless, Adams not only took their cases, he argued them so vigorously that of the 9 British soldiers (all of whom had been charged with murder and were facing the death penalty), 7 were completely acquitted, while the other 2 were convicted of the reduced crime of manslaughter and were sentenced to the reduced penalty of having their thumbs branded.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/boston-massacre-trial.htm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre

Tldr

Thanks for posting an idiotic response to an educated analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do I have a right to have my child have only male teachers and to not see female teachers? Becuz religion?

No, because that's in no way similar to the facts of this case in any way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
MCPS was really asking for it, and got it.

I am mildly concerned about the ramifications of this ruling, but I cannot argue that it is unfair. Parents should have an opt-out in elementary when it comes to explicit content. LGBTQ+ wasn't actually the problem here. Some of the specific book choices were, because there were too explicit. I would have had a problem with it regardless of the sex of the couples in question.

If MCPS had kept this content for the secondary level, I bet it would never have been challenged, and if it had, it would never have made it to the Supreme Court.

MCPS has worked well for my children, and I am grateful they did so much for my eldest with special needs, who is now in college. But I need to point out discrepancies where they exist.

Correct. The biggest issue here was in the book selection. They clearly did not have enough people vetting the LGBTQ books because it gave the right-wing folks the ammunition they needed to claim that an LGBTQ agenda was being pushed onto children, and unfortunately with the books that were cited, those parents weren't wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the teacher that said they’ll deliberately read an LGBTQ+ book weekly and tell objecting students to stay home, this could be interpreted as circumventing the Supreme Court’s ruling. Forcing students to stay home instead of providing an opt-out accommodation (e.g., alternative activities or removal from the specific lesson) may still impose a burden on religious families, potentially violating the injunction. The Court’s opinion emphasized that schools must accommodate religious objections without penalizing students, and requiring absence could be seen as coercive or punitive.

+1. And creating a situation where kids with religious parents get less public education seems sub-optimal from a societal standpoint -- we will all be living in a society with these people don't we want them to learn as much as possible.

I am hugely frustrated by this decision and Moco's insistence on taking this case to the Supreme Court. That said, I am currently trying to get another religious accommodation for my kid (one that has nothing to do with subject matter being taught in school) and it has been surprisingly difficult to get a straight answer from the school (entire situation is in limbo over the summer).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
MCPS was really asking for it, and got it.

I am mildly concerned about the ramifications of this ruling, but I cannot argue that it is unfair. Parents should have an opt-out in elementary when it comes to explicit content. LGBTQ+ wasn't actually the problem here. Some of the specific book choices were, because there were too explicit. I would have had a problem with it regardless of the sex of the couples in question.

If MCPS had kept this content for the secondary level, I bet it would never have been challenged, and if it had, it would never have made it to the Supreme Court.

MCPS has worked well for my children, and I am grateful they did so much for my eldest with special needs, who is now in college. But I need to point out discrepancies where they exist.

Correct. The biggest issue here was in the book selection. They clearly did not have enough people vetting the LGBTQ books because it gave the right-wing folks the ammunition they needed to claim that an LGBTQ agenda was being pushed onto children, and unfortunately with the books that were cited, those parents weren't wrong.

MCPS had lots of time and opputunity to change books or do somethng about it. MCPS did nothing.

I don't think remaining in bubble and thinking that it's a right wing vs left wing issue will help here. Majority of parents will not want certain exposure to young kids. MCPS simply ignored 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.

You can’t force a child to stay home, that’s unethical and illegal, use your critical reasoning skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
MCPS was really asking for it, and got it.

I am mildly concerned about the ramifications of this ruling, but I cannot argue that it is unfair. Parents should have an opt-out in elementary when it comes to explicit content. LGBTQ+ wasn't actually the problem here. Some of the specific book choices were, because there were too explicit. I would have had a problem with it regardless of the sex of the couples in question.

If MCPS had kept this content for the secondary level, I bet it would never have been challenged, and if it had, it would never have made it to the Supreme Court.

MCPS has worked well for my children, and I am grateful they did so much for my eldest with special needs, who is now in college. But I need to point out discrepancies where they exist.

Correct. The biggest issue here was in the book selection. They clearly did not have enough people vetting the LGBTQ books because it gave the right-wing folks the ammunition they needed to claim that an LGBTQ agenda was being pushed onto children, and unfortunately with the books that were cited, those parents weren't wrong.

More fallout from McKnight's ineptitude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can’t force a child to stay home, that’s unethical and illegal, use your critical reasoning skills.

No one's forced. They're welcome to come to school to participate in that day's lessons.

[Anonymous]

MCPS FAFO’ed, hope they’re smart enough to be humble now and move on and stop wasting our money with this nonsense!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can’t force a child to stay home, that’s unethical and illegal, use your critical reasoning skills.

No one's forced. They're welcome to come to school to participate in that day's lessons.

Not if the choose to opt out of the lesson. Are you stupid or just feigned ignorance? If a parent chooses to opt out you can’t force the child to stay home. That’s ILLEGAL!