Supreme Court rules on parents' lawsuit over LGBT books in schools...including story where a prince marries a knight

Daily Mail​

a day ago

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that parents suing over LGBT books in their classrooms are likely to prevail and that a Maryland county's policy isn't consistent with their freedom of religion.
The 6-3 ruling by the court's conservative majority provides yet another for religious plantiffs who have sued objecting to government policies they say violate their beliefs.
The Montgomery County, Maryland policy, which began with 'opt-outs' that later went away, 'substantially interferes with the religious development of their children and imposes the kind of burden on religious exercise,' wrote Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in the majority opinion.
The books themselves 'are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected,' Alito wrote, in an opinion where he picked apart the LGBT-friendly plotlines of of the books that were included in county classrooms.
'For example, the book Prince & Knight clearly conveys the message that same-sex marriage should be accepted by all as a cause for celebration. The young reader is guided to feel distressed at the prince's failure to find a princess, and then to celebrate when the prince meets his male partner,' Alito write.
'Those celebrating the same-sex wedding are not just family members and close friends, but the entire kingdom,' notes Alito.
Likewise, he breaks down main character Chloe's reaction in 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' which deals with a same-sex marriage, when she asked the question: 'Why is Uncle Bobby getting married?'
'The book is coy about the precise reason for Chloe's question, but the question is used to tee up a direct message to young readers: ''Bobby and Jamie love each other,' said Mummy,' Alito writes.
'We conclude that the Board's introduction of the 'LGBTQ+-inclusive' storybooks, combined with its no-opt-out policy, burdens the parents' right to the free exercise of religion,' the majority wrote.
The court also took issue with the Board's decision to disallow 'opt-outs', after concluding it could leave some students to feel marginalized.
'The Board's introduction of the 'LGBTQ+-inclusive' storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents' rights to the free exercise of their religion,' the majority found.
The case, with national implications about LGBT books in schools – on case that played out just outside of Washington, DC.
At issue was a suit by Christian and Muslim parents who sued so that their children could opt out of certain classrooms where books with LGBT characters were present.
It is just the latest case to test the intersection of religion and LGBT rights.
The books are 'made available for individual reading, classroom read-alouds, and other educational activities designed to foster and enhance literacy skills,' according to the county.
They feature same sex love stories and and other material about LGBT issues, such as transgender characters. One picture book, Uncle Bobby's Wedding, celebrates a family wedding as a girl learns she is gaining an uncle when her favorite uncle marries a man.
Parents with children in public schools in Montgomery County, located just outside of Washington, appealed after lower courts declined to order the local school district to let children opt out when these books are read.
The high court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has expanded the rights of religious people in several cases in recent years, including in cases involving LGBT people.
For instance, the court in 2023 ruled that certain businesses have a right under the First Amendment's free speech protections to refuse to provide services for same-sex weddings.
The school board in Montgomery County approved in 2022 a handful of storybooks that feature LGBT characters as part of its English language-arts curriculum in order to better represent the diversity of families living in the county.
The storybooks are available for teachers to use 'alongside the many books already in the curriculum that feature heterosexual characters in traditional gender roles,' the district said in a filing.
The district said it ended the opt-outs in 2023 when the mounting number of requests to excuse students from these classes became logistically unworkable and raised concerns of 'social stigma and isolation' among students who believe the books represent them and their families.
Opt-outs are still allowed by the district for sex education units of health classes.
The county is Maryland's largest, and is home to many federal workers, and is home to the National Institutes of Health.
The plaintiffs - who are Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox - said in their lawsuit that the storybooks 'promote one-sided transgender ideology, encourage gender transitioning and focus excessively on romantic infatuation - with no parental notification or opportunity to opt out.'
They said the First Amendment protects their right to instill religious beliefs and practices in their children, including on gender and sexuality that are 'crucial for their children's ability to fulfill religious aspirations concerning marriage and family.'
Represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty conservative legal group, the parents who sued included Tamer Mahmoud, Enas Barakat, Chris Persak, Melissa Persak, Jeff Roman and Svitlana Roman, along with an organization called Kids First that seeks opt-out rights in Montgomery County.
The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024 denied a request by the plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction. The 4th Circuit said that there was no evidence that the storybooks are 'being implemented in a way that directly or indirectly coerces the parents or their children to believe or act contrary to their religious faith.'
The plaintiffs told the Supreme Court that the 4th Circuit's decision undermined the right of parents to 'protect their children's innocence and direct their religious upbringing.'
The school board emphasized in a brief to the court that mere exposure to content that parents find religiously objectionable does not violate the First Amendment.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation secularism advocacy group in a filing to the Supreme Court supporting the school board said parents should not have the constitutional right 'to ensure that all secular education materials conform with their personal religious beliefs.'
Such a rule would be boundless because 'almost any book or idea - however commonplace or innocent - likely contradicts some religious ideals,' the group said. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on April 22. The court's three liberal justices raised concerns about how far opt-outs for students could go beyond storybooks in public schools, offering examples of subjects such as evolution, interracial marriage or women working outside the home that might come up in classes.
During the arguments, conservative Justice Samuel Alito cited one of the disputed storybooks that portrays a same-sex wedding and emphasized that the material promotes a moral message 'that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with.'
In another religious rights case involving education, the Supreme Court in a 4-4 ruling on May 22 blocked a bid led by two Catholic dioceses to establish in Oklahoma the first taxpayer-funded religious charter school in the United States.