Supreme Court rules on students opting out of school’s mandatory LGBTQ indoctrination program

Posted on by Constitutional Nobody

The Supreme Court, with a 6-3 decision, has granted permission to parents and children of the Montgomery County, Maryland, schools to opt out of the forced LGBTQ indoctrination school officials had adopted and mandated for all children, teachings that violated the faith of those families.

The decision reversed the wrong decision from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that last year ruled against the constitutional rights of the parents and their children.

The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, came about because of concerns from parents of a variety of faiths who objected to the mandated leftist ideologies being forced on their children.

The leftist agenda adopted by the schools had, in fact, originally included a plan for parents to opt their children out of offensive teachings. However, school officials soon complained they couldn’t and didn’t want to provide that, so it was dropped.

That triggered the lawsuit.

The court noted the district “introduced a variety of ‘LGBTQ+-inclusive’ texts into the public school curriculum. Those texts included five ‘LGBTQ+-inclusive’ storybooks approved for students in kindergarten through fifth grade, which have story lines focused on sexuality and gender. When parents in Montgomery County sought to have their children excused from instruction involving those books, the Board initially compromised with the parents by notifying them when the ‘LGBTQ+ inclusive’ storybooks would be taught and permitting their children to be excused from the instruction.”

That actually followed the board’s own guidelines for “Respecting Religious Diversity.”

However, the board soon complained it could not accommodate the exploding number of parents insisting on opt outs. So members mandated the students go through the indoctrination.

ussanews.com

The result was parents “from diverse religious backgrounds” who “hold sincere views on sexuality and gender which they wish to pass on to their children,” went to court, charging their constitutional rights to the free exercise of their religion was being infringed.

The parents sought an injunction allowing the opt-outs, and the Supreme Court granted that.

“To obtain that form of preliminary relief, the parents must show that: they are likely to succeed on the merits; they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; the balance of equities tips in their favor; and an injunction would be in the public interest,” the ruling, delivered by Justice Samuel Alito, said.

He was joined by Justices Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Demanding that the forced indoctrination be allowed to continue was a dissent written by Sonia Sotomayor, who was joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, the personality on the court who found herself unable to even define “woman” during her Senate confirmation hearing.

The court said the parents succeeded in showing their grounds for relief.

“The parents are likely to succeed on their claim that the Board’s policies unconstitutionally burden their religious exercise. The court has ‘long recognized the rights of parents to direct ‘the religious up bringing’ of their children.’ Those rights are violated by government policies that ‘substantially interfer[e] with the religious development’ of children.

“For many people of faith, there are few religious acts more important than the religious education of their children. And the practice of educating one’s children in one’s religious beliefs, like all religious acts and practices, receives a generous measure of constitutional protection. The Constitution protects, for example, a parent’s decision to send his or her child to a private religious school instead of a public school. And the Court has recognized limits on the government’s ability to interfere with a student’s religious upbringing in a public school setting.”

In fact, the court even has held, previously, that forcing Amish children into “an environment hostile to Amish beliefs” was unconstitutional.

ussanews.com

In this case, “The board’s introduction of the ‘LGBTQ+-inclusive’ story books, combined with its decision to withhold notice to parents and to forbid opt outs, substantially interferes with the religious development of petitioners’ children and imposes the kind of burden on religious exercise that Yoder found unacceptable.”

The ruling said, “The books are unmistakably normative. They are designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated, and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected. Take, for example, the message sent by the books concerning same sex marriage. Many Americans ‘advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.’ That group includes each of the parents in this case. The storybooks, however, are designed to present the opposite viewpoint to young, impressionable children who are likely to accept without question any moral messages conveyed by their teacher’s instruction.”

Further, said the ruling, “The storybooks present same-sex weddings as occasions for great celebration and suggest that the only rubric for determining whether a marriage is acceptable is whether the individuals concerned ‘love each other.’ The storybooks similarly convey a normative message on the subjects of sex and gender. Many Americans, like the parents in this case, believe that biological sex reflects divine creation, that sex and gender are inseparable, and that children should be encouraged to accept their sex and to live accordingly. The storybooks, however, suggest that it is hurtful, and perhaps even hateful, to hold the view that gender is inextricably bound with biological sex.”

In fact, Montgomery County’s books “impose upon children a set of values and beliefs that are ‘hostile’ to their parents’ religion beliefs.”

Even worse, “The board has specifically encouraged teachers to reinforce this viewpoint and to reprimand any children who disagree. That goes be yond mere ‘exposure.’ Regardless, the question in cases of this kind is whether the educational requirement or curriculum at issue would ‘substantially interfer[e] with the religious development’ of the child, or pose ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices the parent wishes to instill in the child.”

The ruling said, “To evaluate the plaintiffs’ claims, the court need only decide whether—if teachers act according to the clear and undisputed instructions of the Board—a burden on religious exercise will occur. It is no answer that parents remain free to place their children in private school or to educate them at home. Public education is a public benefit, and the government cannot ‘condition” its ‘availability” on parents’ willingness to accept a burden on their religious exercise.”

 

Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Bob Unruh

This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://www.wnd.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.

USSANews.com
ussanews.com
ussanews.com
USSANews.com