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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP have you read this lawsuit in its entirety?

I have they will lose .

It is the worst written lawsuit. The lawyers on the side of the religious zealots should lose their license because of how bad they wrote their side.

It is religious garbage. Worse than that they want add religious indoctrination into public schools.

Please post a link.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The online activist class seems unable to define their own terms, or stick to them. Of course you're clear on what PP meant and are playing dumb.

This. Just read the article in WAPO today about Meta and "hate speech."

The LGBTQ community calls speech that says only biological girls should be playing in girls' sports "hate speech."
Meta, thankfully, said "no."
The comments in WAPO today are against Meta. The commenters insist that it is "hate speech." I assume the comments were promoted by the "online activist class."

Montgomery County went too far. There are plenty of ABC books that do not include drag queens.

The New York Times recently did an article about the SJSU volleyball team and the comments were largely against transgender women in women’s sports. I wonder why such a difference in comments.

This is all window dressing, a dog and pony show to distract from the stealing from taxpayers the Trump regime and oligarchs are doing. Kids do not care about this stuff. Back in my day, a trans person was very, very unusual. Now, there are a handful of trans kids in every school. The kids don't care. Their parents, who were raised as I was, care, but the to the kids, a trans kid is just another kid who is slightly different from the average kid. NBD. But the Trump regime seized on the trans issue because it's upsetting to people of my era, who were not raised with trans kids in our schools. They had to stay hidden back in my day. But now, I think it's great they don't have to hide. There are so few trans kids. If one of them plays girls sports, NBD. The kids don't care in the slightest. It's their parents who care. Sigh. Grow up, people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The online activist class seems unable to define their own terms, or stick to them. Of course you're clear on what PP meant and are playing dumb.

This. Just read the article in WAPO today about Meta and "hate speech."

The LGBTQ community calls speech that says only biological girls should be playing in girls' sports "hate speech."
Meta, thankfully, said "no."
The comments in WAPO today are against Meta. The commenters insist that it is "hate speech." I assume the comments were promoted by the "online activist class."

Montgomery County went too far. There are plenty of ABC books that do not include drag queens.

The New York Times recently did an article about the SJSU volleyball team and the comments were largely against transgender women in women’s sports. I wonder why such a difference in comments.

This is all window dressing, a dog and pony show to distract from the stealing from taxpayers the Trump regime and oligarchs are doing. Kids do not care about this stuff. Back in my day, a trans person was very, very unusual. Now, there are a handful of trans kids in every school. The kids don't care. Their parents, who were raised as I was, care, but the to the kids, a trans kid is just another kid who is slightly different from the average kid. NBD. But the Trump regime seized on the trans issue because it's upsetting to people of my era, who were not raised with trans kids in our schools. They had to stay hidden back in my day. But now, I think it's great they don't have to hide. There are so few trans kids. If one of them plays girls sports, NBD. The kids don't care in the slightest. It's their parents who care. Sigh. Grow up, people.

According to polling you are wildly wrong. The kids do care, quite a bit, and not the way you think. Gen Z is conservative on this issue.

[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:

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.

It's you who should form your own private schools where you can peddle your fetish-driven religion to the children of fellow groomers like yourself. The normal people in society shouldn't be driven out of schools so you can run amok with your incessant sex talks.

+1000
It will never cease to astound me how much these people actually WANT to expose children to sexual topics. Why? I can't fathom the mind of someone who would promote this stuff to children.

What is with all your pearl clutching. People are sexual entities. They grow into that sexuality as the mature. No one is promoting anything sexual or religious wise to kids in school. They are just not shying away from letting kids make informed decisions. Sex exist. It exist in many forms besides the missionary position. Sexual health and responsibility exist. Folks should understand it just like they get taught about other health. LGBTQ people exist. Folks should be taught to respect their choices just like you expect people to respect yours.

How is any of this difficult to comprehend? Why is any of it controversial? Half the people claiming to reject it on religious reasons have many more other things in their lives which are counter to religion observance and behavior.

This isn’t just a sex ed class. These readings are embedded throughout the curriculum so parents have fewer options to withdraw their children. Pride Puppy for example was being utilized in an English class.

The lesson plans go well beyond “gays exist” as has been pointed out. It includes the idea that biological sex is a “guess” which is a pseudo religious, non falsifiable concept that doesn’t belong in a school.

Again show us where this went much further? Pride Puppy is an A to Z kid’s book. Just because one of the searches in the appendix of the book is search for leather for L you all made it more than it is. Leather is a type of material. If kid was reading a Scottish book and we told them to look for Tartan or Kilt how would that be any different?

DP. Listen, it's not working. Your side's attempt to introduce sexual content to children and groom them into acceptance of your fetishes was caught and your cover story didn't work. Your reward is that SCOTUS will now take a sledgehammer to the entire LGBTQ edifice and crumble it as society cheers. Learn the lesson and stop the overreach before you lose gay marriage as well.

Umm 1)I have never nor do I ever expect to be attempting to groom children. 2)Kids are introduced to sexual content everyday (people holding hands, relationships, baby animals being born, etc). 3)I’m not incorrect or losing the argument when all you can do is resort to name calling or baseless accusations or fearful talking points(ie grooming).

And my side believes in freedom, civil rights, intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and appropriately preparing humans for the world they are to be in charge of one day. What is your side’s beliefs?

My side believes you're a nutjob to think babies being born, relationships, and people holding hands are sexual content, but homosexuals in fetishwear marching in a parade organized to celebrate the sex they have is not sexual content. My side also believes that you are a dishonest, dangerous person and no one like you should be in power. Fortunately, my side won the last election and you can sit mad for the next four years while we unravel your conspiracies against decency.

There are many sides here. And some of us might not like a few of the books but agree that your “side” that won the most recent election is the most dangerous of all. Especially to our children.

You’re here frothing at the mouth about a few books while the POTUS you elected is dismantling the government, tearing down our democracy so he can be a dictator. Ignoring due process, having people kidnapped off the streets. Dismantling all the things that keep our food, water, and drugs safe. Dismantling research into diseases and treatments. How is that good for kids? You and your “side” are the real devils who thrive on hate and ignorance and lies.

So shove your sanctimony where the sun dont shine. You are not righteous. You are the worst danger of all. You are traitors to our country who voted for all this destruction. Those books won’t matter if your kid is dead from measles or poisoned food.

Ma’am, this thread is about a Supreme Court case.

Of course. And the people who are so worked up about it are missing the real problems happening right in front of them.

You are not funny.

And you can’t keep on topic. Take your generalized hysteria elsewhere. This case is going to be ruled on, regardless of whatever else is going on, and it is because radicals in MoCo could not be reasonable.

Really. You're gonna use the old sexist trope "hysteria". FFS. What Trump is doing will have far greater impacts than these stupid books. You indignant parents really are puffed up with your self-importance and blinded by it. Wake TF up.

Fascinating. You don’t seem to understand how Supreme Court jurisprudence even works. Do you understand there is a Supreme Court case at issue here, that is going to be ruled on and will have significant impact, no matter what else is going on? It is not clear to me that you understand the basics here.

Absolutely understand it all. It's fascinating that the Smug Insufferable Parents don't seem to be able to understand a comment aimed at a single PP who made a sweeping generalization about the many different parents with many different nuanced viewpoints about this case. There is not ONE Trump-supporting opposition to these books. It's far more complicated than that. And to equate feelings about this single topic with wholesale support of the Trump administration reign of terror on our freedom of speech and democracy is just wrong. Do you disagree. Are you saying all people who are against these books support all of Trump's policies? Really?

[Anonymous]

Well it was a tactic that worked for a while among the activist class. They could basically silence any form of disagreement by accusing people of being MAGA. They know these people aren't MAGA trump supporters, because the tactic only works on people who aren't.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's you who should form your own private schools where you can peddle your fetish-driven religion to the children of fellow groomers like yourself. The normal people in society shouldn't be driven out of schools so you can run amok with your incessant sex talks.

+1000
It will never cease to astound me how much these people actually WANT to expose children to sexual topics. Why? I can't fathom the mind of someone who would promote this stuff to children.

What is with all your pearl clutching. People are sexual entities. They grow into that sexuality as the mature. No one is promoting anything sexual or religious wise to kids in school. They are just not shying away from letting kids make informed decisions. Sex exist. It exist in many forms besides the missionary position. Sexual health and responsibility exist. Folks should understand it just like they get taught about other health. LGBTQ people exist. Folks should be taught to respect their choices just like you expect people to respect yours.

How is any of this difficult to comprehend? Why is any of it controversial? Half the people claiming to reject it on religious reasons have many more other things in their lives which are counter to religion observance and behavior.

This isn’t just a sex ed class. These readings are embedded throughout the curriculum so parents have fewer options to withdraw their children. Pride Puppy for example was being utilized in an English class.

The lesson plans go well beyond “gays exist” as has been pointed out. It includes the idea that biological sex is a “guess” which is a pseudo religious, non falsifiable concept that doesn’t belong in a school.

Again show us where this went much further? Pride Puppy is an A to Z kid’s book. Just because one of the searches in the appendix of the book is search for leather for L you all made it more than it is. Leather is a type of material. If kid was reading a Scottish book and we told them to look for Tartan or Kilt how would that be any different?

DP. Listen, it's not working. Your side's attempt to introduce sexual content to children and groom them into acceptance of your fetishes was caught and your cover story didn't work. Your reward is that SCOTUS will now take a sledgehammer to the entire LGBTQ edifice and crumble it as society cheers. Learn the lesson and stop the overreach before you lose gay marriage as well.

Umm 1)I have never nor do I ever expect to be attempting to groom children. 2)Kids are introduced to sexual content everyday (people holding hands, relationships, baby animals being born, etc). 3)I’m not incorrect or losing the argument when all you can do is resort to name calling or baseless accusations or fearful talking points(ie grooming).

And my side believes in freedom, civil rights, intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and appropriately preparing humans for the world they are to be in charge of one day. What is your side’s beliefs?

My side believes you're a nutjob to think babies being born, relationships, and people holding hands are sexual content, but homosexuals in fetishwear marching in a parade organized to celebrate the sex they have is not sexual content. My side also believes that you are a dishonest, dangerous person and no one like you should be in power. Fortunately, my side won the last election and you can sit mad for the next four years while we unravel your conspiracies against decency.

There are many sides here. And some of us might not like a few of the books but agree that your “side” that won the most recent election is the most dangerous of all. Especially to our children.

You’re here frothing at the mouth about a few books while the POTUS you elected is dismantling the government, tearing down our democracy so he can be a dictator. Ignoring due process, having people kidnapped off the streets. Dismantling all the things that keep our food, water, and drugs safe. Dismantling research into diseases and treatments. How is that good for kids? You and your “side” are the real devils who thrive on hate and ignorance and lies.

So shove your sanctimony where the sun dont shine. You are not righteous. You are the worst danger of all. You are traitors to our country who voted for all this destruction. Those books won’t matter if your kid is dead from measles or poisoned food.

Ma’am, this thread is about a Supreme Court case.

Of course. And the people who are so worked up about it are missing the real problems happening right in front of them.

You are not funny.

And you can’t keep on topic. Take your generalized hysteria elsewhere. This case is going to be ruled on, regardless of whatever else is going on, and it is because radicals in MoCo could not be reasonable.

Really. You're gonna use the old sexist trope "hysteria". FFS. What Trump is doing will have far greater impacts than these stupid books. You indignant parents really are puffed up with your self-importance and blinded by it. Wake TF up.

Fascinating. You don’t seem to understand how Supreme Court jurisprudence even works. Do you understand there is a Supreme Court case at issue here, that is going to be ruled on and will have significant impact, no matter what else is going on? It is not clear to me that you understand the basics here.

Absolutely understand it all. It's fascinating that the Smug Insufferable Parents don't seem to be able to understand a comment aimed at a single PP who made a sweeping generalization about the many different parents with many different nuanced viewpoints about this case. There is not ONE Trump-supporting opposition to these books. It's far more complicated than that. And to equate feelings about this single topic with wholesale support of the Trump administration reign of terror on our freedom of speech and democracy is just wrong. Do you disagree. Are you saying all people who are against these books support all of Trump's policies? Really?

Wait, what? Aren’t you the person posting unrelated and unfocused rants because people are discussing a Supreme Court case and you don’t like that?

Of course not everyone who supports the plaintiffs in this case support Trump. Probably most people in the US support the plaintiffs, it polling is any indication, and they certainly don’t all support Trump (in fact most don’t). I’m genuinely confused by your posts. You don’t seem to understand that this is a Supreme Court case that is going to have a ruling, regardless of anything else going on, and you don’t want people to discuss it. It is very weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well it was a tactic that worked for a while among the activist class. They could basically silence any form of disagreement by accusing people of being MAGA. They know these people aren't MAGA trump supporters, because the tactic only works on people who aren't.

Yes, that’s true. That tactic did work for awhile: even people opposed to MAGA were not permitted to raise a single objection to even the most extreme aspects of gender ideology, or they’d be attacked as MAGA. Thankfully that no longer works.

[Anonymous]

For people interested in the legal history here, here is a good summary:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/supreme-court-considers-parents-efforts-to-exempt-children-from-books-with-lgbtq-themes/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should just put the religious kids in a class together and the non-religious kids in another. I’m tired of religious people.

Gender ideology is a religion at this point, and it is as fundamentalist in its own way as the far-right Christians and radical Islamists are.

I want radicalism of all kinds out of school, and that includes gender ideology.

+100

[Anonymous]

MCPS with the own goal. Not surprised.

[Anonymous]

I think the lines have irreparably been blurred by extremists on both sides.

I respect LGBTQ+...always have. If two women or two men want to get married...no problem. I respect same-sex marriage even though deep down I don't necessarily believe in it. I don't have to believe in something to respect it. Same thing with gender identity-- I respect those who have a gender identity that is outside the norm. I respect it even though I don't believe in it. Again, I don't have to believe in something to respect it. There is nothing wrong with the "you do you" mentality...as long as there is no harm done.

The issue here is the all-or-nothing extreme mentality. There is a huge difference between a book about two moms or two dads versus a book about gender identity and gender ideology. Huge.

I'm not going to read LGBTQ+ books to my grandchildren that focus on gender ideology when they are in K-3. I don't believe gender identity-focused LGBTQ+ books belong in K-3 at all...except for the very basic ones that simply address that not all families have a mom/dad -- some have a step-mom, step-dad, two moms, two dads or even just a grandmother. But I honestly would not label these books as LGBTQ+ per se.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

What about opting out of books with interracial couples?

If it’s against someone’s religious beliefs then of course.

+1

You can have whatever religious beliefs you want, but you don't get to decide who gets to exist and have their existence acknowledged. Gay people exist. Some kids have two moms or two dads. Some books will feature characters and families like this.

Your religious beliefs do not belong in public school, and they should not dictate what gets taught. If you want to raise your kids with hate and bigotry, you can instill those values at home, and you can send your kids to private school. But being gay is not a crime in this country. These people and these families exist, and we will not pretend they do not because it makes you feel icky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

What about opting out of books with interracial couples?

If it’s against someone’s religious beliefs then of course.

+1

You can have whatever religious beliefs you want, but you don't get to decide who gets to exist and have their existence acknowledged. Gay people exist. Some kids have two moms or two dads. Some books will feature characters and families like this.

Your religious beliefs do not belong in public school, and they should not dictate what gets taught. If you want to raise your kids with hate and bigotry, you can instill those values at home, and you can send your kids to private school. But being gay is not a crime in this country. These people and these families exist, and we will not pretend they do not because it makes you feel icky.

But you are currently allowed to opt out your child from sex education based on religious beliefs and to opt out of other things based on religious beliefs. This is no different. That being said...IMHO the opt-out should only be allowed for K-3 grades and should be solely focused on books related to gender ideology. There is a huge difference between books on different family dynamics (two moms/dads, step-mom/dad, etc.) and books teaching gender ideology. Huge difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

What about opting out of books with interracial couples?

If it’s against someone’s religious beliefs then of course.

+1

You can have whatever religious beliefs you want, but you don't get to decide who gets to exist and have their existence acknowledged. Gay people exist. Some kids have two moms or two dads. Some books will feature characters and families like this.

Your religious beliefs do not belong in public school, and they should not dictate what gets taught. If you want to raise your kids with hate and bigotry, you can instill those values at home, and you can send your kids to private school. But being gay is not a crime in this country. These people and these families exist, and we will not pretend they do not because it makes you feel icky.

Well, your fundamentalist religious beliefs that a gender identity apart from physical sex exists, that children can baptize themselves into a new gender identity, and that children can make life altering medical choices based on that faith-based gender identity are currently being taught in public schools, so we have a problem indeed with religious beliefs in public schools.

Almost nobody objects to books featuring two dads or two moms. If that was all the books contained, this case wouldn’t exist. But the books went much further.

The better analogy is this: When children’s books include a woman in a hijab as a character, almost nobody cares. Many of those exist already. But if an obligatory book for young children is something called “Maryam’s First Hijab,” celebrates the day a child dons her first hijab, and has a word finder asking kids to find items associated with Islam as part of the English curriculum, there would justifiably be a lawsuit. Or, imagine “Josephine’s First Holy Communion” being taught in pre-K. That is essentially what has happened here. These MoCo books crossed the line into a faith-based belief system, and therefore came into direct conflict with other faith-based belief systems. That’s the source of the conflict. It’s a matter of conflicting faiths, and none belong in public school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

What about opting out of books with interracial couples?

If it’s against someone’s religious beliefs then of course.

+1

You can have whatever religious beliefs you want, but you don't get to decide who gets to exist and have their existence acknowledged. Gay people exist. Some kids have two moms or two dads. Some books will feature characters and families like this.

Your religious beliefs do not belong in public school, and they should not dictate what gets taught. If you want to raise your kids with hate and bigotry, you can instill those values at home, and you can send your kids to private school. But being gay is not a crime in this country. These people and these families exist, and we will not pretend they do not because it makes you feel icky.

Well, your fundamentalist religious beliefs that a gender identity apart from physical sex exists, that children can baptize themselves into a new gender identity, and that children can make life altering medical choices based on that faith-based gender identity are currently being taught in public schools, so we have a problem indeed with religious beliefs in public schools.

Almost nobody objects to books featuring two dads or two moms. If that was all the books contained, this case wouldn’t exist. But the books went much further.

The better analogy is this: When children’s books include a woman in a hijab as a character, almost nobody cares. Many of those exist already. But if an obligatory book for young children is something called “Maryam’s First Hijab,” celebrates the day a child dons her first hijab, and has a word finder asking kids to find items associated with Islam as part of the English curriculum, there would justifiably be a lawsuit. Or, imagine “Josephine’s First Holy Communion” being taught in pre-K. That is essentially what has happened here. These MoCo books crossed the line into a faith-based belief system, and therefore came into direct conflict with other faith-based belief systems. That’s the source of the conflict. It’s a matter of conflicting faiths, and none belong in public school.

^^All of this. The nutjobs you're arguing against already know this difference though. They're mad because they had gotten accustomed to using gay acceptance as cover for their indoctrination of children into fetishes and kinks. They'll die mad their agenda has failed after being allowed to groom kids for years.