Ruling on MCPS LGBT curriculum case coming this morning

[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:just let them stay home with excused absences. as long as they aren't creating a strain on school resources, go nuts. it's their education that they sacrifice.

yes, exactly. It's a win/win. Not sure why MCPS fought it so hard. There are kids who opt out of Family Life. Not a big deal.

i think it is because the religious were demanding alternative programming and babysitting for kids who can't be by themselves. If MCPS doesn't have to
provide that, then it's all good.

Another person didn’t bother me o read the case but still shoots off anyway. Doesn’t matter what you think. It matters what relief the parents sought. Allowing an excused absence would have saved so much time and money but now the County allowed things to be made much worse.

The county is not teaching respect and tolerance and this is segregation to separate kids. Parents have rights. You’d be upset if they choose a different direction to teach and you wanted different. The curriculum should be inclusive and it’s not.

You have no idea what I think about the curriculum because I didn’t post it. I observed that the poster doesn’t actually know the case details. It was a loser case and now makes things much more difficult for everyone.

The case showed how intolerant MCPS and some of the parents are about tolerance to others. They want tolerance and acceptance when it comes to their beliefs but not others. Thats not healthy for our kids. We live in a community with a huge amount of diversity and all that diversity should be respected, just not select groups.

What's up with these talking points about "if you don't welcome and support my bigotry you're intolerant"? I see this a lot... but it's just gotcha phrasing, and people don't actually believe this, do they? Like, obviously "I don't like Christians and don't want them in my school" is intolerant, but do these people actually honestly think it's "intolerant" to not accommodate everyone's prejudices by erasing the existence of people they're biased towards from schools, and if is somehow more "tolerant" to exclude any mention of certain kinds of people because someone doesn't like them?

The parents weren't asking for anyone to be erased, nor where they asking that the books be banned; they simply asked that their children be able to opt out, as they had previously, and still can for some classes.

That's it - the books aren't being banned.

Yes but the challenge that presents is that means folks can opt out of books for any reason. Which then means teachers have to prepare double lessons.

If a teacher is using the books they are reading then, using them to teach literary elements, comparing and contrasting. Families would be opting out of all those lessons.

Where do you think that would lead next?

An artificial problem created by activists in MCPS. A vast majority of non-regious families don't want all this LGBTQ talk for 5-6 years old kids. If any doubt, MCPS should run a survey about it and it will be clear.

Simple solution is to fire activists who are using taxpayers money for their agenda.

What about the books that just have married people… gay or straight? Or interracial couples? Why do you get to opt out of that?

What about books about child rape? Do we start showing that as well becaue it exists? There are tons of things not appropriate for 5-6 years old and just becasue it exist in world, we don't need to start teaching them.

There is time and place to talk about LGBTQ. 5-6 years old don't need to know individual lifestyle choices made by some folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just let them stay home with excused absences. as long as they aren't creating a strain on school resources, go nuts. it's their education that they sacrifice.

yes, exactly. It's a win/win. Not sure why MCPS fought it so hard. There are kids who opt out of Family Life. Not a big deal.

i think it is because the religious were demanding alternative programming and babysitting for kids who can't be by themselves. If MCPS doesn't have to
provide that, then it's all good.

Another person didn’t bother me o read the case but still shoots off anyway. Doesn’t matter what you think. It matters what relief the parents sought. Allowing an excused absence would have saved so much time and money but now the County allowed things to be made much worse.

The county is not teaching respect and tolerance and this is segregation to separate kids. Parents have rights. You’d be upset if they choose a different direction to teach and you wanted different. The curriculum should be inclusive and it’s not.

You have no idea what I think about the curriculum because I didn’t post it. I observed that the poster doesn’t actually know the case details. It was a loser case and now makes things much more difficult for everyone.

The case showed how intolerant MCPS and some of the parents are about tolerance to others. They want tolerance and acceptance when it comes to their beliefs but not others. Thats not healthy for our kids. We live in a community with a huge amount of diversity and all that diversity should be respected, just not select groups.

What's up with these talking points about "if you don't welcome and support my bigotry you're intolerant"? I see this a lot... but it's just gotcha phrasing, and people don't actually believe this, do they? Like, obviously "I don't like Christians and don't want them in my school" is intolerant, but do these people actually honestly think it's "intolerant" to not accommodate everyone's prejudices by erasing the existence of people they're biased towards from schools, and if is somehow more "tolerant" to exclude any mention of certain kinds of people because someone doesn't like them?

The parents weren't asking for anyone to be erased, nor where they asking that the books be banned; they simply asked that their children be able to opt out, as they had previously, and still can for some classes.

That's it - the books aren't being banned.

Yes but the challenge that presents is that means folks can opt out of books for any reason. Which then means teachers have to prepare double lessons.

If a teacher is using the books they are reading then, using them to teach literary elements, comparing and contrasting. Families would be opting out of all those lessons.

Where do you think that would lead next?

Would you please stop referring to us as "folks." We are parents. We are not random "folks" who have no horse in this race.

Or, the teachers could simply drop the objectionable books in the first place and teach everyone the same lesson, from the same books. Now there's a novel idea. If you want to read to your 6 year old DD about how she may really be a boy, do that on your own time, at home.

Nope. Religious activists don't get to set the currculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In essence, yes it is. Parents had wanted to opt their kid out, but MCPS stated that if they do, it would be an unexcused absence. SCOTUS said, basically, it would be an excused absence.

First, "In essence" is meaningless in a court case like this. The only time "excused absence" is even mentioned is when the facts of the case as presented to the district and appeals courts are being discussed; that term is never used as part of the actual decision.

Second, if you read Justice Sotomayor's dissent, it's very clear to her that this means alternative instruction for those students who opt out.

Third, unless MCPS forces parents to keep their kids home under excused absence for other opt-outs, they can't do it for these students, as that would constitute not only discrimination but reprisal based on religious beliefs.

which of the other opt-outs deal with groups of people?

The opt-out (under Maryland law) allows parents to opt their children out of instruction on family life and human sexuality.

As for "groups of people", it doesn't matter - handling opt-outs for family life and human sexuality one way but opt-outs for religious based concerns another way is discriminatory.

[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:just let them stay home with excused absences. as long as they aren't creating a strain on school resources, go nuts. it's their education that they sacrifice.

yes, exactly. It's a win/win. Not sure why MCPS fought it so hard. There are kids who opt out of Family Life. Not a big deal.

i think it is because the religious were demanding alternative programming and babysitting for kids who can't be by themselves. If MCPS doesn't have to
provide that, then it's all good.

Another person didn’t bother me o read the case but still shoots off anyway. Doesn’t matter what you think. It matters what relief the parents sought. Allowing an excused absence would have saved so much time and money but now the County allowed things to be made much worse.

The county is not teaching respect and tolerance and this is segregation to separate kids. Parents have rights. You’d be upset if they choose a different direction to teach and you wanted different. The curriculum should be inclusive and it’s not.

You have no idea what I think about the curriculum because I didn’t post it. I observed that the poster doesn’t actually know the case details. It was a loser case and now makes things much more difficult for everyone.

The case showed how intolerant MCPS and some of the parents are about tolerance to others. They want tolerance and acceptance when it comes to their beliefs but not others. Thats not healthy for our kids. We live in a community with a huge amount of diversity and all that diversity should be respected, just not select groups.

What's up with these talking points about "if you don't welcome and support my bigotry you're intolerant"? I see this a lot... but it's just gotcha phrasing, and people don't actually believe this, do they? Like, obviously "I don't like Christians and don't want them in my school" is intolerant, but do these people actually honestly think it's "intolerant" to not accommodate everyone's prejudices by erasing the existence of people they're biased towards from schools, and if is somehow more "tolerant" to exclude any mention of certain kinds of people because someone doesn't like them?

The parents weren't asking for anyone to be erased, nor where they asking that the books be banned; they simply asked that their children be able to opt out, as they had previously, and still can for some classes.

That's it - the books aren't being banned.

Yes but the challenge that presents is that means folks can opt out of books for any reason. Which then means teachers have to prepare double lessons.

If a teacher is using the books they are reading then, using them to teach literary elements, comparing and contrasting. Families would be opting out of all those lessons.

Where do you think that would lead next?

An artificial problem created by activists in MCPS. A vast majority of non-regious families don't want all this LGBTQ talk for 5-6 years old kids. If any doubt, MCPS should run a survey about it and it will be clear.

Simple solution is to fire activists who are using taxpayers money for their agenda.

What about the books that just have married people… gay or straight? Or interracial couples? Why do you get to opt out of that?

What about books about child rape? Do we start showing that as well becaue it exists? There are tons of things not appropriate for 5-6 years old and just becasue it exist in world, we don't need to start teaching them.

There is time and place to talk about LGBTQ. 5-6 years old don't need to know individual lifestyle choices made by some folks.

If Heather, a student in K, had two mommies, and said so on the day everyone talks about families, is that objectionable to you?

is the 3rd grade trans child saying she is trans objectionable to you? should she hide?

it's not just "in the world"; it's in their classrooms.

[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:just let them stay home with excused absences. as long as they aren't creating a strain on school resources, go nuts. it's their education that they sacrifice.

yes, exactly. It's a win/win. Not sure why MCPS fought it so hard. There are kids who opt out of Family Life. Not a big deal.

i think it is because the religious were demanding alternative programming and babysitting for kids who can't be by themselves. If MCPS doesn't have to
provide that, then it's all good.

Another person didn’t bother me o read the case but still shoots off anyway. Doesn’t matter what you think. It matters what relief the parents sought. Allowing an excused absence would have saved so much time and money but now the County allowed things to be made much worse.

The county is not teaching respect and tolerance and this is segregation to separate kids. Parents have rights. You’d be upset if they choose a different direction to teach and you wanted different. The curriculum should be inclusive and it’s not.

You have no idea what I think about the curriculum because I didn’t post it. I observed that the poster doesn’t actually know the case details. It was a loser case and now makes things much more difficult for everyone.

The case showed how intolerant MCPS and some of the parents are about tolerance to others. They want tolerance and acceptance when it comes to their beliefs but not others. Thats not healthy for our kids. We live in a community with a huge amount of diversity and all that diversity should be respected, just not select groups.

What's up with these talking points about "if you don't welcome and support my bigotry you're intolerant"? I see this a lot... but it's just gotcha phrasing, and people don't actually believe this, do they? Like, obviously "I don't like Christians and don't want them in my school" is intolerant, but do these people actually honestly think it's "intolerant" to not accommodate everyone's prejudices by erasing the existence of people they're biased towards from schools, and if is somehow more "tolerant" to exclude any mention of certain kinds of people because someone doesn't like them?

The parents weren't asking for anyone to be erased, nor where they asking that the books be banned; they simply asked that their children be able to opt out, as they had previously, and still can for some classes.

That's it - the books aren't being banned.

Yes but the challenge that presents is that means folks can opt out of books for any reason. Which then means teachers have to prepare double lessons.

If a teacher is using the books they are reading then, using them to teach literary elements, comparing and contrasting. Families would be opting out of all those lessons.

Where do you think that would lead next?

Would you please stop referring to us as "folks." We are parents. We are not random "folks" who have no horse in this race.

Or, the teachers could simply drop the objectionable books in the first place and teach everyone the same lesson, from the same books. Now there's a novel idea. If you want to read to your 6 year old DD about how she may really be a boy, do that on your own time, at home.

Nope. Religious activists don't get to set the currculum.

Agreed - and they're not. The curriculum can stay, but parents get to opt their kids out of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In essence, yes it is. Parents had wanted to opt their kid out, but MCPS stated that if they do, it would be an unexcused absence. SCOTUS said, basically, it would be an excused absence.

First, "In essence" is meaningless in a court case like this. The only time "excused absence" is even mentioned is when the facts of the case as presented to the district and appeals courts are being discussed; that term is never used as part of the actual decision.

Second, if you read Justice Sotomayor's dissent, it's very clear to her that this means alternative instruction for those students who opt out.

Third, unless MCPS forces parents to keep their kids home under excused absence for other opt-outs, they can't do it for these students, as that would constitute not only discrimination but reprisal based on religious beliefs.

which of the other opt-outs deal with groups of people?

The opt-out (under Maryland law) allows parents to opt their children out of instruction on family life and human sexuality.

As for "groups of people", it doesn't matter - handling opt-outs for family life and human sexuality one way but opt-outs for religious based concerns another way is discriminatory.

"humans" are not a group of people. the opt out is saying they object to hearing about how others live their lives. different from learning that you don't pee out of the period hole.

[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:just let them stay home with excused absences. as long as they aren't creating a strain on school resources, go nuts. it's their education that they sacrifice.

yes, exactly. It's a win/win. Not sure why MCPS fought it so hard. There are kids who opt out of Family Life. Not a big deal.

i think it is because the religious were demanding alternative programming and babysitting for kids who can't be by themselves. If MCPS doesn't have to
provide that, then it's all good.

Another person didn’t bother me o read the case but still shoots off anyway. Doesn’t matter what you think. It matters what relief the parents sought. Allowing an excused absence would have saved so much time and money but now the County allowed things to be made much worse.

The county is not teaching respect and tolerance and this is segregation to separate kids. Parents have rights. You’d be upset if they choose a different direction to teach and you wanted different. The curriculum should be inclusive and it’s not.

You have no idea what I think about the curriculum because I didn’t post it. I observed that the poster doesn’t actually know the case details. It was a loser case and now makes things much more difficult for everyone.

The case showed how intolerant MCPS and some of the parents are about tolerance to others. They want tolerance and acceptance when it comes to their beliefs but not others. Thats not healthy for our kids. We live in a community with a huge amount of diversity and all that diversity should be respected, just not select groups.

What's up with these talking points about "if you don't welcome and support my bigotry you're intolerant"? I see this a lot... but it's just gotcha phrasing, and people don't actually believe this, do they? Like, obviously "I don't like Christians and don't want them in my school" is intolerant, but do these people actually honestly think it's "intolerant" to not accommodate everyone's prejudices by erasing the existence of people they're biased towards from schools, and if is somehow more "tolerant" to exclude any mention of certain kinds of people because someone doesn't like them?

The parents weren't asking for anyone to be erased, nor where they asking that the books be banned; they simply asked that their children be able to opt out, as they had previously, and still can for some classes.

That's it - the books aren't being banned.

Yes but the challenge that presents is that means folks can opt out of books for any reason. Which then means teachers have to prepare double lessons.

If a teacher is using the books they are reading then, using them to teach literary elements, comparing and contrasting. Families would be opting out of all those lessons.

Where do you think that would lead next?

Would you please stop referring to us as "folks." We are parents. We are not random "folks" who have no horse in this race.

Or, the teachers could simply drop the objectionable books in the first place and teach everyone the same lesson, from the same books. Now there's a novel idea. If you want to read to your 6 year old DD about how she may really be a boy, do that on your own time, at home.

Nope. Religious activists don't get to set the currculum.

Agreed - and they're not. The curriculum can stay, but parents get to opt their kids out of it.

well, PP certainly is suggesting that the books be removed from the curriculum: "the teachers could simply drop the objectionable books in the first place"

this has always been the goal, whether the religious activists admit as such.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In essence, yes it is. Parents had wanted to opt their kid out, but MCPS stated that if they do, it would be an unexcused absence. SCOTUS said, basically, it would be an excused absence.

First, "In essence" is meaningless in a court case like this. The only time "excused absence" is even mentioned is when the facts of the case as presented to the district and appeals courts are being discussed; that term is never used as part of the actual decision.

Second, if you read Justice Sotomayor's dissent, it's very clear to her that this means alternative instruction for those students who opt out.

Third, unless MCPS forces parents to keep their kids home under excused absence for other opt-outs, they can't do it for these students, as that would constitute not only discrimination but reprisal based on religious beliefs.

which of the other opt-outs deal with groups of people?

The opt-out (under Maryland law) allows parents to opt their children out of instruction on family life and human sexuality.

As for "groups of people", it doesn't matter - handling opt-outs for family life and human sexuality one way but opt-outs for religious based concerns another way is discriminatory.

"humans" are not a group of people. the opt out is saying they object to hearing about how others live their lives. different from learning that you don't pee out of the period hole.

What you seem to be missing, intentionally or not, is that the reason for the opt-out is irrelevant in relation to how it's handled.

If MCPS allows students who opt out of family life and human sexuality to go to the library or otherwise take part in alternate instruction, they can't tell religious parents who opt out of LGBTQ content that they have to keep their kids at home that day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In essence, yes it is. Parents had wanted to opt their kid out, but MCPS stated that if they do, it would be an unexcused absence. SCOTUS said, basically, it would be an excused absence.

First, "In essence" is meaningless in a court case like this. The only time "excused absence" is even mentioned is when the facts of the case as presented to the district and appeals courts are being discussed; that term is never used as part of the actual decision.

Second, if you read Justice Sotomayor's dissent, it's very clear to her that this means alternative instruction for those students who opt out.

Third, unless MCPS forces parents to keep their kids home under excused absence for other opt-outs, they can't do it for these students, as that would constitute not only discrimination but reprisal based on religious beliefs.

which of the other opt-outs deal with groups of people?

The opt-out (under Maryland law) allows parents to opt their children out of instruction on family life and human sexuality.

As for "groups of people", it doesn't matter - handling opt-outs for family life and human sexuality one way but opt-outs for religious based concerns another way is discriminatory.

"humans" are not a group of people. the opt out is saying they object to hearing about how others live their lives. different from learning that you don't pee out of the period hole.

What you seem to be missing, intentionally or not, is that the reason for the opt-out is irrelevant in relation to how it's handled.

If MCPS allows students who opt out of family life and human sexuality to go to the library or otherwise take part in alternate instruction, they can't tell religious parents who opt out of LGBTQ content that they have to keep their kids at home that day.

in practice it might be irrelevant, I'll give you that. but I would imagine that the motivation it isn't the same is because the religious activists are objecting to the behaviors of other people right next to them.

[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:just let them stay home with excused absences. as long as they aren't creating a strain on school resources, go nuts. it's their education that they sacrifice.

yes, exactly. It's a win/win. Not sure why MCPS fought it so hard. There are kids who opt out of Family Life. Not a big deal.

i think it is because the religious were demanding alternative programming and babysitting for kids who can't be by themselves. If MCPS doesn't have to
provide that, then it's all good.

Another person didn’t bother me o read the case but still shoots off anyway. Doesn’t matter what you think. It matters what relief the parents sought. Allowing an excused absence would have saved so much time and money but now the County allowed things to be made much worse.

The county is not teaching respect and tolerance and this is segregation to separate kids. Parents have rights. You’d be upset if they choose a different direction to teach and you wanted different. The curriculum should be inclusive and it’s not.

You have no idea what I think about the curriculum because I didn’t post it. I observed that the poster doesn’t actually know the case details. It was a loser case and now makes things much more difficult for everyone.

The case showed how intolerant MCPS and some of the parents are about tolerance to others. They want tolerance and acceptance when it comes to their beliefs but not others. Thats not healthy for our kids. We live in a community with a huge amount of diversity and all that diversity should be respected, just not select groups.

What's up with these talking points about "if you don't welcome and support my bigotry you're intolerant"? I see this a lot... but it's just gotcha phrasing, and people don't actually believe this, do they? Like, obviously "I don't like Christians and don't want them in my school" is intolerant, but do these people actually honestly think it's "intolerant" to not accommodate everyone's prejudices by erasing the existence of people they're biased towards from schools, and if is somehow more "tolerant" to exclude any mention of certain kinds of people because someone doesn't like them?

The parents weren't asking for anyone to be erased, nor where they asking that the books be banned; they simply asked that their children be able to opt out, as they had previously, and still can for some classes.

That's it - the books aren't being banned.

Yes but the challenge that presents is that means folks can opt out of books for any reason. Which then means teachers have to prepare double lessons.

If a teacher is using the books they are reading then, using them to teach literary elements, comparing and contrasting. Families would be opting out of all those lessons.

Where do you think that would lead next?

Would you please stop referring to us as "folks." We are parents. We are not random "folks" who have no horse in this race.

Or, the teachers could simply drop the objectionable books in the first place and teach everyone the same lesson, from the same books. Now there's a novel idea. If you want to read to your 6 year old DD about how she may really be a boy, do that on your own time, at home.

Nope. Religious activists don't get to set the currculum.

Agreed - and they're not. The curriculum can stay, but parents get to opt their kids out of it.

well, PP certainly is suggesting that the books be removed from the curriculum: "the teachers could simply drop the objectionable books in the first place"

this has always been the goal, whether the religious activists admit as such.

If they wanted the objectionable content left out, they could have easily made that part of their case. Instead, they explicitly stated that there were not asking for the books to be removed. I have no doubt at all that there are plenty of parents that would like to have the books removed, but that isn't the case with the parents who brought this lawsuit.

As for the PP, they are incorrect that teachers can simply choose not to use the books - the books are mandated by MCPS, so the teachers have to use them.

[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:just let them stay home with excused absences. as long as they aren't creating a strain on school resources, go nuts. it's their education that they sacrifice.

yes, exactly. It's a win/win. Not sure why MCPS fought it so hard. There are kids who opt out of Family Life. Not a big deal.

i think it is because the religious were demanding alternative programming and babysitting for kids who can't be by themselves. If MCPS doesn't have to
provide that, then it's all good.

Another person didn’t bother me o read the case but still shoots off anyway. Doesn’t matter what you think. It matters what relief the parents sought. Allowing an excused absence would have saved so much time and money but now the County allowed things to be made much worse.

The county is not teaching respect and tolerance and this is segregation to separate kids. Parents have rights. You’d be upset if they choose a different direction to teach and you wanted different. The curriculum should be inclusive and it’s not.

You have no idea what I think about the curriculum because I didn’t post it. I observed that the poster doesn’t actually know the case details. It was a loser case and now makes things much more difficult for everyone.

The case showed how intolerant MCPS and some of the parents are about tolerance to others. They want tolerance and acceptance when it comes to their beliefs but not others. Thats not healthy for our kids. We live in a community with a huge amount of diversity and all that diversity should be respected, just not select groups.

What's up with these talking points about "if you don't welcome and support my bigotry you're intolerant"? I see this a lot... but it's just gotcha phrasing, and people don't actually believe this, do they? Like, obviously "I don't like Christians and don't want them in my school" is intolerant, but do these people actually honestly think it's "intolerant" to not accommodate everyone's prejudices by erasing the existence of people they're biased towards from schools, and if is somehow more "tolerant" to exclude any mention of certain kinds of people because someone doesn't like them?

The parents weren't asking for anyone to be erased, nor where they asking that the books be banned; they simply asked that their children be able to opt out, as they had previously, and still can for some classes.

That's it - the books aren't being banned.

Yes but the challenge that presents is that means folks can opt out of books for any reason. Which then means teachers have to prepare double lessons.

If a teacher is using the books they are reading then, using them to teach literary elements, comparing and contrasting. Families would be opting out of all those lessons.

Where do you think that would lead next?

An artificial problem created by activists in MCPS. A vast majority of non-regious families don't want all this LGBTQ talk for 5-6 years old kids. If any doubt, MCPS should run a survey about it and it will be clear.

Simple solution is to fire activists who are using taxpayers money for their agenda.

What about the books that just have married people… gay or straight? Or interracial couples? Why do you get to opt out of that?

What about books about child rape? Do we start showing that as well becaue it exists? There are tons of things not appropriate for 5-6 years old and just becasue it exist in world, we don't need to start teaching them.

There is time and place to talk about LGBTQ. 5-6 years old don't need to know individual lifestyle choices made by some folks.

I started teaching my kids about sex abuse early on, but like anything you do it in an age appropriate way. They’ve always know cousin likes boys and never cared or thought much about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In essence, yes it is. Parents had wanted to opt their kid out, but MCPS stated that if they do, it would be an unexcused absence. SCOTUS said, basically, it would be an excused absence.

First, "In essence" is meaningless in a court case like this. The only time "excused absence" is even mentioned is when the facts of the case as presented to the district and appeals courts are being discussed; that term is never used as part of the actual decision.

Second, if you read Justice Sotomayor's dissent, it's very clear to her that this means alternative instruction for those students who opt out.

Third, unless MCPS forces parents to keep their kids home under excused absence for other opt-outs, they can't do it for these students, as that would constitute not only discrimination but reprisal based on religious beliefs.

which of the other opt-outs deal with groups of people?

The opt-out (under Maryland law) allows parents to opt their children out of instruction on family life and human sexuality.

As for "groups of people", it doesn't matter - handling opt-outs for family life and human sexuality one way but opt-outs for religious based concerns another way is discriminatory.

"humans" are not a group of people. the opt out is saying they object to hearing about how others live their lives. different from learning that you don't pee out of the period hole.

What you seem to be missing, intentionally or not, is that the reason for the opt-out is irrelevant in relation to how it's handled.

If MCPS allows students who opt out of family life and human sexuality to go to the library or otherwise take part in alternate instruction, they can't tell religious parents who opt out of LGBTQ content that they have to keep their kids at home that day.

in practice it might be irrelevant, I'll give you that. but I would imagine that the motivation it isn't the same is because the religious activists are objecting to the behaviors of other people right next to them.

Peoples beliefs should be respected regardless of if you agree. You want tolerance but are preaching the exact opposite. There is no need to integrate it into every subject and handle it in health ed, which it’s aready a huge focus and families can opt out. Pick books that meet all families views and stop being so intolerant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In essence, yes it is. Parents had wanted to opt their kid out, but MCPS stated that if they do, it would be an unexcused absence. SCOTUS said, basically, it would be an excused absence.

First, "In essence" is meaningless in a court case like this. The only time "excused absence" is even mentioned is when the facts of the case as presented to the district and appeals courts are being discussed; that term is never used as part of the actual decision.

Second, if you read Justice Sotomayor's dissent, it's very clear to her that this means alternative instruction for those students who opt out.

Third, unless MCPS forces parents to keep their kids home under excused absence for other opt-outs, they can't do it for these students, as that would constitute not only discrimination but reprisal based on religious beliefs.

which of the other opt-outs deal with groups of people?

The opt-out (under Maryland law) allows parents to opt their children out of instruction on family life and human sexuality.

As for "groups of people", it doesn't matter - handling opt-outs for family life and human sexuality one way but opt-outs for religious based concerns another way is discriminatory.

"humans" are not a group of people. the opt out is saying they object to hearing about how others live their lives. different from learning that you don't pee out of the period hole.

What you seem to be missing, intentionally or not, is that the reason for the opt-out is irrelevant in relation to how it's handled.

If MCPS allows students who opt out of family life and human sexuality to go to the library or otherwise take part in alternate instruction, they can't tell religious parents who opt out of LGBTQ content that they have to keep their kids at home that day.

in practice it might be irrelevant, I'll give you that. but I would imagine that the motivation it isn't the same is because the religious activists are objecting to the behaviors of other people right next to them.

Peoples beliefs should be respected regardless of if you agree. You want tolerance but are preaching the exact opposite. There is no need to integrate it into every subject and handle it in health ed, which it’s aready a huge focus and families can opt out. Pick books that meet all families views and stop being so intolerant.

There also has to be a way for teachers to handle kids who disagree without making a value judgement one way or the other.

A lesson is about a family with two dads or two moms, and little Susie says "There can't be two dads or two moms, there has to be one dad and one mom". The teacher's response shouldn't be "No Susie, you're wrong", it should be "Susie, some families have two dads or two moms - you may think it's wrong, but everyone needs to be treated with kindness and respect, even if we disagree with them."

It's really not that hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d really like to keep sexual orientation out of the curriculum. Kids have no problem with the concept of love and marriage and will do whatever is in the culture happily. There is such broad support for gay marriage that I see no reason to keep beating the drum.

Does that mean keep heterosexuality out of the curriculum? It's going to be hard to find books where children have neither same sex nor opposite sex parents.

We don't push 1 month of regular marriage celebration like MCPS does for LGBTQ. That's simply counter productive.

This issue has gone extreme in our county and MCPS going till suprement court is a wake up call that let;s not county be highjacked by nut cases. That's how some one like Trump gets elected.

I'm a Democrat who is glad Trump won because of the trans nonsense that infiltrated our schools
MCPS public statement after they got handed the loss shows they learned nothing

Trump will win a third term and our schools will continue to suffer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d really like to keep sexual orientation out of the curriculum. Kids have no problem with the concept of love and marriage and will do whatever is in the culture happily. There is such broad support for gay marriage that I see no reason to keep beating the drum.

Does that mean keep heterosexuality out of the curriculum? It's going to be hard to find books where children have neither same sex nor opposite sex parents.

What on God‘s green earth are you talking about? Sexual orientation has nothing to do with love and marriage. There’s no need to “teach” sexual orientation. Just live your damn life!

+1

Live your life. No one is bothering you, don't bother others with your agenda.

The point is we are teaching heterosexuality every day. The princess marries the prince. The mom and dad have a baby. There is implicit messaging if that is all you see.

Exactly. All 12 months are a celebration of heterosexuality.

Why celebrate sexuality at all? Esp in schools. It's dumb