Latest news with #religiousfreedom
The Independent
8 hours ago
- Politics
- The Independent
What to know about the US Supreme Court's ruling on public school lessons using LGBTQ books
A divided U.S. Supreme Court has sided with religious parents who want to pull their children out of the classroom when a public school lesson uses LGBTQ-themed storybooks. The 6-3 decision Friday in a case brought by parents in Maryland comes as certain books are increasingly being banned from public schools and libraries. In Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion — joined by the rest of the court's conservatives — he wrote that the lack of an 'opt-out' option for parents places an unconstitutional burden on their rights to religious freedom. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent for the three liberal justices that public schools expose children to different views in a multicultural society. 'That experience is critical to our Nation's civic vitality,' she wrote. 'Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs." Here's what to know about the case and its potential impacts: What happens next The decision was not a final ruling in the case. It reversed lower-court rulings that sided with the Montgomery County school system, which introduced the storybooks in 2022 as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. At first, the school district allowed parents to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the district later reversed course, saying it became disruptive. The move prompted protests and eventually a lawsuit. Now, the case goes back to the lower court to be reevaluated under the Supreme Court's new guidance. But the justices strongly suggested that the parents will win in the end. The court ruled that policies like the one at issue in this case are subjected to the strictest level of review, nearly always dooming them. The ruling could have national implications for public education Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the court's ruling could inspire similar lawsuits in other states. 'I think any school district that reads similar books to their children is now subject to suit by parents who don't want their kids to hear these books because it substantially interferes with their religious beliefs," she said. Whether it could open the door to broader legal challenges remains to be seen. Levinson said the majority opinion's emphasis on the particular books at the center of the case, including 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a story about a two men getting married, could narrow its impact. 'The question that people will ask," Levinson said, 'is if this could now allow parents to say, 'We don't want our kids to learn about certain aspects of American history.' ' LGBTQ rights advocates slam court ruling Adam Zimmerman, who has two kids in school in Montgomery County, Maryland, called the ruling abhorrent. 'We need to call out what's being dressed up as religious faith and values and expose it for the intolerance that it really is,' he said. Zimmerman has lived in Montgomery County for 16 years and wanted to raise his son and daughter there, in large part, because of the school district's diversity. It was important to him, he said, that his kids be exposed to people from all walks of life. 'It's a beautiful thing, and this ruling just spits on that diversity," he said. Other rights groups described the court's decision as harmful and dangerous. "No matter what the Supreme Court has said, and what extremist groups are advocating for, book bans and other censorship will not erase LGBTQIA+ people from our communities,' said Fatima Goss Graves, CEO and president of the National Women's Law Center. Conservative advocates say the case is about parental rights and religious freedom Republican U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who was part of an amicus brief filed in the case in support of the Maryland parents, called the ruling a 'win for families.' "Students should not be forced to learn about gender and sexuality subject matter that violates their family's religious beliefs,' he said. Lawyer Eric Baxter, who represented the parents at the Supreme Court, also called the decision a 'historic victory for parental rights.' ' Kids shouldn't be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents' permission,' Baxter said. Other opponents say ruling will have 'broad chilling effect' PEN America, a group advocating for free expression, said the court's decision could open the door to censorship and discrimination in classrooms. 'In practice, opt outs for religious objections will chill what is taught in schools and usher in a more narrow orthodoxy as fear of offending any ideology or sensibility takes hold,' said Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney at PEN America. In a joint statement Friday, some of the authors and illustrators of the books in question described the ruling as a threat to First Amendment rights to free speech, as well as diversity in schools. 'To treat children's books about LGBTQ+ characters differently than similar books about non-LGBTQ+ characters is discriminatory and harmful,' the statement said.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
The 9 LGBTQ+ children's books targeted in high court ruling upending education policy
Picture books are not usually the stuff of Supreme Court rulings. But on Friday, a majority of justices ruled that parents have a right to opt their children out of lessons that offend their religious beliefs — bringing the colorful pages of books like "Uncle Bobby's Wedding" and "Pride Puppy" into the staid public record of the nation's highest court. The ruling resulted from a lawsuit brought by parents in Montgomery County, Md., who sued for the right to remove their children from lessons where LGBTQ+ storybooks would be read aloud in elementary school classes from kindergarten through 5th grade. The books were part of an effort in the district to represent LGBTQ+ families in the English language arts curriculum. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that schools must 'notify them in advance' when one of the disputed storybooks would be used in their child's class, so that they could have their children temporarily removed. The court's three liberals dissented. Read more: Parents may pull their children from classes that offend their religion, Supreme Court rules As part of the the decisions, briefings and petitions in the case, the justices and lawyers for the parents described in detail the story lines of nine picture books that were part of Montgomery County's new curriculum. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor even reproduced one, "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," in its entirety. Here are the nine books that were the subject of the case: Pride PuppyAuthor: Robin Stevenson Illustrator: Julie McLaughlin "Pride Puppy," a rhyming alphabet book for very young children, depicts a little girl who loses her dog during a joyful visit to a Pride parade. The story, which is available as a board book, invites readers to spot items starting with each of the letters of the alphabet, including apple, baseball and clouds — as well as items more specific to a Pride parade. Lawyers representing the parents said in their brief that the "invites students barely old enough to tie their own shoes to search for images of 'underwear,' 'leather,' 'lip ring,' '[drag] king' and '[drag] queen,' and 'Marsha P. Johnson,' a controversial LGBTQ activist and sex worker." The "leather" in question refers to a mother's jacket, and the "underwear" to a pair of green briefs worn over tights by an older child as part of a colorful outfit. The Montgomery County Public Schools stopped teaching "Pride Puppy" in the midst of the legal battle. Read more: As children's book bans soar, sales are down and librarians are afraid. Even in California Love, VioletAuthor: Charlotte Sullivan WildIllustrator: Charlene Chua The story describes a little girl named Violet with a crush on another girl in her class named Mira, who "had a leaping laugh" and "made Violet's heart skip." But every time Mira tries to talk to her, Violet gets shy and quiet. On Valentine's Day, Violet makes Mira a special valentine. As Violet gathers the courage to give it to her, the valentine ends up trampled in the snow. But Mira loves it anyway and also has a special gift for Violet — a locket with a violet inside. At the end of the book, the two girls go on an adventure together. Lawyers for the parents describe "Love, Violet" as a book about "two young girls and their same-sex playground romance." They wrote in that "teachers are encouraged to have a 'think aloud' moment to ask students how it feels when they don't just 'like' but 'like like' someone." Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named PenelopeAuthor: Jodie Patterson Illustrator: Charnelle Pinkney Barlow In "Born Ready," 5-year-old Penelope was born a girl but is certain they are a boy. "I love you, Mama, but I don't want to be you. I want to be Papa. I don't want tomorrow to come because tomorrow I'll look like you. Please help me, Mama. Help me be a boy," Penelope tells their mom. "We will make a plan to tell everyone we know," Penelope's mom tells them, and they throw a big party to celebrate. In her dissent, Sotomayor notes, "When Penelope's brother expresses skepticism, his mother says, 'Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love.' " In their opening brief, lawyers for the families said that "teachers are told to instruct students that, at birth, people 'guess about our gender,' but 'we know ourselves best.' " Prince and Knight Author: Daniel Haack Illustrator: Stevie Lewis "Prince and Knight" is a story about a prince whose parents want him to find a bride, but instead he falls in love with a knight. Together, they fight off a dragon. When the prince falls from a great height, his knight rescues him on horseback. When the king and queen find out of their love, they "were overwhelmed with joy. 'We have finally found someone who is perfect for our boy!' " A great wedding is held, and "the prince and his shining knight would live happily ever after." "The book Prince & Knight clearly conveys the message that same-sex marriage should be accepted by all as a cause for celebration," said Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, a concerning message for Americans whose religion tells them that same-sex marriage is wrong. "For young children, to whom this and the other storybooks are targeted, such celebration is liable to be processed as having moral connotations," Alito wrote. "If this same-sex marriage makes everyone happy and leads to joyous celebration by all, doesn't that mean it is in every respect a good thing?" Uncle Bobby's WeddingAuthor: Sarah S. Brannen Illustrator: Lucia Soto In "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," a little girl named Chloe learns that her beloved uncle is engaged to his partner, a man named Jamie. At first, she worries that the marriage will change her close bond with her uncle. But she soon embraces the celebration and the joy of getting another uncle through the union. In the majority opinion, Alito wrote that the book sends children the message that "two people can get married, regardless of whether they are of the same or the opposite sex, so long as they 'love each other.' " That viewpoint is "directly contrary to the religious principles that the parents in this case wish to instill in their children." Parents ability to "present a different moral message" to their children, he said, "is undermined when the exact opposite message is positively reinforced in the public school classroom at a very young age." In her dissent, Sotomayor includes the entire book, writing that, "Because the majority selectively excerpts the book in order to rewrite its story." The majority's analysis, she writes, "reveals its failure to accept and account for a fundamental truth: LGBTQ people exist. They are part of virtually every community and workplace of any appreciable size. Eliminating books depicting LGBTQ individuals as happily accepted by their families will not eliminate student exposure to that concept." Jacob's Room to ChooseAuthor: Sarah Hoffman and Ian HoffmanIllustrator: Chris Case "Jacob's Room to Choose" is a follow-up to "Jacob's New Dress," a picture book listed as one of the American Library Assn.'s top 100 banned books of the last decade. Jacob wears a dress, and when he tries to use the boy's bathroom, two little boys "stared at Jacob standing in the doorway. Jacob knew what that look meant. He turned and ran out." The same thing happens to his friend Sophie, who presents as a boy and is chased out of the girl's bathroom. Their teacher encourages the whole class to rethink what gender really means. The class decides everyone should be able to use the bathroom that makes them feel comfortable, and makes new, inclusive signs to hang on the bathroom doors. "After relabeling the bathroom doors to welcome multiple genders, the children parade with placards that proclaim 'Bathrooms Are For Every Bunny' and '[choose] the bathroom that is comfy,' " lawyers for the parents wrote. IntersectionAllies: We Make Room for All Author: Chelsea Johnson, LaToya Council and Carolyn Choi Illustrator: Ashley Seil Smith "IntersectionAllies," written by three sociologists, is a story about characters with different identities, including one who uses a wheelchair, and another, Kate, who identifies as transgender. One page shows Kate in a gender-neutral bathroom, saying, "My friends defend my choices and place. A bathroom, like all rooms, should be a safe space." In the majority opinion, Alito describes a discussion guide included with the book that he said asserts: "When we are born, our gender is often decided for us based on our sex . . . . But at any point in our lives, we can choose to identify with one gender, multiple genders, or neither gender." The guide asks readers, 'What pronouns fit you best?' Alito wrote. What Are Your Words?: A Book About Pronouns Author: Katherine LockeIllustrator: Anne Passchier "What Are Your Words" is a picture book about a child named Ari whose pronouns are "like the weather. They change depending on how I feel. And that's ok, because they're my words.' Ari's Uncle Lior (who uses they/them pronouns) is coming to visit, and Ari is struggling to decide which words describe them. "The child spends the day agonizing over the right pronouns," the lawyers for the parents wrote. At the end, while watching fireworks, Ari says, "My words finally found me! They and them feel warm and snug to me.' My RainbowAuthor: DeShanna Neal and Trinity NealIllustrator: Art Twink "My Rainbow" tells the true story of a Black child with autism who self-identifies as a transgender girl. Trinity wants long hair, just like her doll, but has trouble growing it out. "The mother decides that her child knows best and sews him a rainbow-colored wig," lawyers for the parents wrote. The Montgomery County Public Schools also stopped teaching "My Rainbow" during the course of the lawsuit. This article is part of The Times' early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Associated Press
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Associated Press
What to know about the US Supreme Court's ruling on public school lessons using LGBTQ books
A divided U.S. Supreme Court has sided with religious parents who want to pull their children out of the classroom when a public school lesson uses LGBTQ-themed storybooks. The 6-3 decision Friday in a case brought by parents in Maryland comes as certain books are increasingly being banned from public schools and libraries. In Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion — joined by the rest of the court's conservatives — he wrote that the lack of an 'opt-out' option for parents places an unconstitutional burden on their rights to religious freedom. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent for the three liberal justices that public schools expose children to different views in a multicultural society. 'That experience is critical to our Nation's civic vitality,' she wrote. 'Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs.' Here's what to know about the case and its potential impacts: What happens next The decision was not a final ruling in the case. It reversed lower-court rulings that sided with the Montgomery County school system, which introduced the storybooks in 2022 as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. At first, the school district allowed parents to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the district later reversed course, saying it became disruptive. The move prompted protests and eventually a lawsuit. Now, the case goes back to the lower court to be reevaluated under the Supreme Court's new guidance. But the justices strongly suggested that the parents will win in the end. The court ruled that policies like the one at issue in this case are subjected to the strictest level of review, nearly always dooming them. The ruling could have national implications for public education Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the court's ruling could inspire similar lawsuits in other states. 'I think any school district that reads similar books to their children is now subject to suit by parents who don't want their kids to hear these books because it substantially interferes with their religious beliefs,' she said. Whether it could open the door to broader legal challenges remains to be seen. Levinson said the majority opinion's emphasis on the particular books at the center of the case, including 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a story about a two men getting married, could narrow its impact. 'The question that people will ask,' Levinson said, 'is if this could now allow parents to say, 'We don't want our kids to learn about certain aspects of American history.' ' LGBTQ rights advocates slam court ruling Adam Zimmerman, who has two kids in school in Montgomery County, Maryland, called the ruling abhorrent. 'We need to call out what's being dressed up as religious faith and values and expose it for the intolerance that it really is,' he said. Zimmerman has lived in Montgomery County for 16 years and wanted to raise his son and daughter there, in large part, because of the school district's diversity. It was important to him, he said, that his kids be exposed to people from all walks of life. 'It's a beautiful thing, and this ruling just spits on that diversity,' he said. Other rights groups described the court's decision as harmful and dangerous. 'No matter what the Supreme Court has said, and what extremist groups are advocating for, book bans and other censorship will not erase LGBTQIA+ people from our communities,' said Fatima Goss Graves, CEO and president of the National Women's Law Center. Conservative advocates say the case is about parental rights and religious freedom Republican U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who was part of an amicus brief filed in the case in support of the Maryland parents, called the ruling a 'win for families.' 'Students should not be forced to learn about gender and sexuality subject matter that violates their family's religious beliefs,' he said. Lawyer Eric Baxter, who represented the parents at the Supreme Court, also called the decision a 'historic victory for parental rights.' 'Kids shouldn't be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents' permission,' Baxter said. Other opponents say ruling will have 'broad chilling effect' PEN America, a group advocating for free expression, said the court's decision could open the door to censorship and discrimination in classrooms. 'In practice, opt outs for religious objections will chill what is taught in schools and usher in a more narrow orthodoxy as fear of offending any ideology or sensibility takes hold,' said Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney at PEN America. In a joint statement Friday, some of the authors and illustrators of the books in question described the ruling as a threat to First Amendment rights to free speech, as well as diversity in schools. 'To treat children's books about LGBTQ+ characters differently than similar books about non-LGBTQ+ characters is discriminatory and harmful,' the statement said.
CBS News
13 hours ago
- Politics
- CBS News
Colorado church wins right to shelter homeless in RVs after legal battle with Castle Rock
A years-long legal battle between the Colorado town of Castle Rock and a local church has finally reached a resolution. It all started when the town ordered The Rock Church to stop sheltering the homeless in two RVs on its property. The town claimed it was a zoning violation, but the church argued it was their religious duty to help the homeless and said the town was violating their religious freedoms. The two parties have now reached a settlement that allows the church to shelter the homeless in up to five additional RVs beyond what they previously had. "It's actually a mandate in the Bible to take care of your neighbors, to love your neighbor as yourself, to take care of those that are struggling," said Rock Church lead pastor Mike Polhemus. CBS When Polhemus filed a federal lawsuit against the Town of Castle Rock, he was prepared for it to go all the way to the Supreme Court. "We're really fighting for the churches to be able to have their religious freedom, to do the things that we're called to do according to what the scripture commands us to do," Polhemus said. The church's first victory came last July, when a judge granted a preliminary injunction allowing them to resume sheltering people while the case moved forward. The church quickly moved a Parker family of eight in, who stayed for three months. "Now they're they're doing great. They're in their own home. They have a vehicle now," Polhemus said. "They're so thankful that we were able to help them in one of their greatest times of need." This month brought a final win for the church, with a settlement allowing them to shelter people in up to seven RVs on their property. CBS The settlement states the town may choose to pay for and install fencing to screen the RVs from neighbors. The town must also pay $225,000 of the church's legal fees. The terms of the settlement also allow the church to operate a coffee shop on site, as well as partner with the American Red Cross as an emergency shelter in Castle Rock. The Town of Castle Rock shared a joint statement saying: "On May 13, 2024, the Church of the Rock ("the Rock") filed a federal lawsuit against the Town of Castle Rock, Colorado, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The Rock sought and received a court order enjoining the Town from enforcing its land-use laws to prohibit the Rock's operation of its On-Site Temporary Shelter Ministry, through which the Rock provides shelter to those in need in trailers on its property, during the pendency of the case. Since the Court issued its injunction order, the Rock and the Town have sought to resolve this dispute without further litigation. As part of those efforts, on December 2, 2024, the Town issued a revised Letter of Determination that explicitly permits the Rock to operate its On-Site Temporary Shelter Ministry in the two trailers currently located on the Rock's property and clarifies that the applicable Planned Development zoning regulations do not prevent the Rock from providing additional shelter during public emergencies through its partnership with the Red Cross. The Town and the Rock now wish to inform the public that they have reached an agreement intended to end the current litigation and settle issues regarding the future use of the Rock's property to provide temporary housing to those in need. As part of this agreement, a new Letter of Determination will permit the Rock to operate its On-Site Temporary Shelter Ministry located in its existing parking lot. The Town has the option to install additional fencing or landscaping to partially screen the location of the units from the surrounding neighborhood in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The Town acknowledges the Rock's invaluable services to the Castle Rock community through its longstanding efforts to provide support for those members of our community most in need. The Rock acknowledges its responsibilities as a good neighbor and looks forward to working in partnership with the Town while providing those services. The Town and the Rock believe that this agreement is in the best interest of all parties and successfully balances the Rock's religious free-exercise rights with the Town's public interest in enforcing land use regulations and protecting the general welfare, public health, and safety. The Town and the Rock are no longer in an adversarial posture in regard to the litigation and look forward to productive cooperation and potential partnerships on issues in the future." The town looks forward to cooperating with the church in the future, a sentiment Polhemus shares. "We love the Town of Castle Rock. We love everything that they're doing. And our hope is that we can actually work together," Polhemus said. "We're not here to hurt our community, we're actually here to help the community. One of the ways we can do this is help those that are struggling, help our neighbors that have become homeless or in a bad situation, and we can bring them in and quickly get them back on their feet and into a sustainable position and integrated back into society." Today, two people live temporarily in the RVs on site, and the church will set up more RVs as needed. "We find is a lot of the people that are struggling, they don't just need a shelter, but they need people to come alongside them and to really help them in their greatest time of need," Polhemus said. Now that the conflict is settled with the town, the church hopes to explore building workforce housing on their land, an idea that was not popular with neighbors. "I know there's concerns from the neighbors that this is going to reduce their property values and increase crime rates, and I would say to this date, we have done nothing of that sort, and do not plan to do that," Polhemus said. Polhemus says the church will continue to follow its calling, and he hopes neighbors will join them. "Christ showed us love when he died on a cross for us," Polhemus said. "My encouragement to our community, to our churches, is that we would respond in the same love that Christ had for us, and lay down our lives for one another. And one of the ways we do that is by helping those that are struggling with housing."
News24
18 hours ago
- Politics
- News24
US Supreme Court rules 6-3: parents can opt children out of LGBTQ school lessons on religious grounds
The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favour of Christian and Muslim parents seeking the right to opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed lessons in Maryland public schools. Majority opinion found that denying parents the ability to withdraw their children from such instruction 'unconstitutionally burdens' their right to exercise their religion. Dissenting justices argued that public schools should expose children to diverse ideas to prepare them for a multicultural society. The US Supreme Court on Friday ruled 6-3 in favour of parents seeking the right to opt their children out of lessons involving LGBTQ-themed books on religious grounds. The justices were reviewing an appeal brought by Christian and Muslim parents against a Maryland public school district that, in 2022, introduced books aimed at combating prejudice and discussing gender identity into kindergarten and elementary school curricula. The court found that the parents were likely to succeed in their claim that denying them the ability to withdraw their children from such instruction "unconstitutionally burdens" their right to exercise their religion. "For many people of faith, there are few religious acts more important than the religious education of their children," wrote Justice Samuel Alito in the majority opinion. He added that the books in question "are designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated, and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected," citing the normalisation and celebration of same-sex marriage as one such example. READ | New York pride launches 'peer-to-peer campaign' as company funding declines amid Trump hostility In the dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor - joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson - argued that public schools "offer to children of all faiths and backgrounds an education and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society." That experience is critical to our nation's civic vitality. Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs. US President Donald Trump has taken aim at diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives across the federal government, with particular focus on transgender issues. His Justice Department backed the parents in the case, calling the school district's policy "textbook interference with the free exercise of religion."
