• Re: Justices Let Parents Opt Children Out of Classes With L.G.B.T.Q. St

    From Lee@21:1/5 to Praetor Mandrake on Fri Jun 27 17:11:23 2025
    XPost: law.court.federal, alt.politics.homosexuality, or.politics
    XPost: sac.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    On 6/27/2025 2:36 PM, Praetor Mandrake wrote:
    Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-lgbtq-
    books.html

    Maryland parents have a religious right to withdraw their children from
    classes on days that stories with gay and transgender themes are
    discussed, the court ruled.

    June 27, 2025
    Updated 11:21 a.m. ET
    Public schools in Maryland must allow parents with religious objections to >> withdraw their children from classes in which storybooks with L.G.B.T.Q.
    themes are discussed, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday.

    The vote was 6 to 3, with the court’s liberal members in dissent.

    The case extended a winning streak for claims of religious freedom at the
    court, gains that have often come at the expense of other values, notably
    gay rights.

    The case concerned a new curriculum adopted in 2022 for prekindergarten
    through the fifth grade by the Montgomery County Public Schools,
    Maryland’s largest school system.

    The storybooks included “Pride Puppy,” an alphabet primer about a family >> whose puppy gets lost at a Pride parade; “Love, Violet,” about a girl who
    develops a crush on her female classmate; “Born Ready,” about a
    transgender boy; and “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” about a same-sex union. >>
    At first, the school system gave parents notice when the storybooks were
    to be discussed, along with the opportunity to have their children
    excused. But school administrators soon eliminated the advance notice and
    opt-out policy, saying it was hard to administer, led to absenteeism and
    risked “exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and
    their families to social stigma and isolation.”

    Parents of several faiths sued, saying the books violated the First
    Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion. The books, their >> complaint said, “promote one-sided transgender ideology, encourage gender >> transitioning and focus excessively on romantic infatuation.”

    The parents said they did not seek to remove the books from school
    libraries and classrooms but only to shield their children from having to
    discuss them. (The school system has since withdrawn two of the seven
    books, including “Pride Puppy.” In court papers, officials said the books
    had been re-evaluated under standard procedures but did not elaborate.)

    The school system defended the curriculum, telling the justices in a brief >> that it featured “a handful of storybooks featuring lesbian, gay,
    bisexual, transgender or queer characters for use in the language-arts
    curriculum, alongside the many books already in the curriculum that
    feature heterosexual characters in traditional gender roles.”

    The Supreme Court has in recent years steadily expanded the role of
    religion in public life.

    The court has ruled in favor of a web designer who said she did not want
    to create sites for same-sex marriages, a high school football coach who
    said he had a constitutional right to pray at the 50-yard line after his
    team’s games and a Catholic social services agency in Philadelphia that
    said it could defy city rules and refuse to work with same-sex couples who >> had applied to take in foster children.

    Lower courts ruled against the Maryland parents.

    “There’s no evidence at present that the board’s decision not to permit
    opt-outs compels the parents or their children to change their religious
    beliefs or conduct, either at school or elsewhere,” Judge G. Steven Agee >> wrote for the majority of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals >> for the Fourth Circuit.

    Judge Agee, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, added that
    “simply hearing about other views does not necessarily exert pressure to >> believe or act differently than one’s religious faith requires.”

    In dissent, Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr., who was appointed by
    President Trump, said the parents had made a modest request.

    “They do not claim the use of the books is itself unconstitutional,” he >> wrote. “And they do not seek to ban them. Instead, they only want to opt >> their children out of the instruction involving such texts.”

    The school board, in its Supreme Court brief in the case, Mahmoud v.
    Taylor, No. 24-297, wrote that the dispute was based on a misunderstanding >> about what lessons students were intended to draw from the books.

    “The storybooks themselves do not instruct about gender or sexuality,” the
    brief said. “They are not textbooks. They merely introduce students to
    characters who are L.G.B.T.Q. or have L.G.B.T.Q. family members, and those >> characters’ experiences and points of view.”

    "L.G.B.T.Q. forced acceptance"

    For me, LGBTQ is Democrats' Achilles' Heel.

    Somewhat; but see more below.

    It is bizarre to me that school communities are sending encouragement to students to change gender.

    *No* schools are doing that. *Some* schools have made a point of offering support to children who are "gender confused," but they are not "encouraging" them to change gender. That's a right-wingnut lie. Don't fall for it.

    The only reason I can think of is a dearth of sluts in the school and manufacturing more girls as a solution.
    Funny comment, but not based on facts.

    So regarding "LGBTQ is Democrats' Achilles' Heel"...throw out the 'Q' altogether. That's just a catch-all for anyone who is not normal straight who feels the other letters don't capture his identity. I fully support the people who identify as the "LGB" part of the loathsome "LGBTQ" label. "LGB" just describes their *preference*. Women preferring women, men preferring men, and men and women preferring either/both is not an issue. It is *none* of anyone's business. *Absolutely* two men or two women should be allowed to marry; there is
    no valid or sound reason not to allow it. All arguments against gay/lesbian marriage fail; this is not in rational dispute.

    Where I draw the line is with the 'T' in LGBTQ. I don't support criminalizing or
    hassling them in any way, but *equally*, I don't support forced accommodation of
    them in any way. If a man wants to compete in women's sports, I say no — no fucking way. If some former NFL linebacker decides he's a woman and wants to use
    women's toilets, I say no — no fucking way. *We* do not have to accommodate mentally ill people as they wish to be accommodated. That's just how it is.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dutch@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jun 29 03:56:24 2025
    XPost: law.court.federal, alt.politics.homosexuality, or.politics
    XPost: sac.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    On 27 Jun 2025, Lee <[email protected]> posted some news:LqG7Q.1601$[email protected]:

    On 6/27/2025 2:36 PM, Praetor Mandrake wrote:
    Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-lgbtq-
    books.html

    Maryland parents have a religious right to withdraw their children
    from classes on days that stories with gay and transgender themes
    are discussed, the court ruled.

    June 27, 2025
    Updated 11:21 a.m. ET
    Public schools in Maryland must allow parents with religious
    objections to withdraw their children from classes in which
    storybooks with L.G.B.T.Q. themes are discussed, the Supreme Court
    ruled on Friday.

    The vote was 6 to 3, with the court’s liberal members in dissent. >>>
    The case extended a winning streak for claims of religious freedom
    at the court, gains that have often come at the expense of other
    values, notably gay rights.

    The case concerned a new curriculum adopted in 2022 for
    prekindergarten through the fifth grade by the Montgomery County
    Public Schools, Maryland’s largest school system.

    The storybooks included “Pride Puppy,” an alphabet primer about >>> a family whose puppy gets lost at a Pride parade; “Love,
    Violet,” about a girl who develops a crush on her female
    classmate; “Born Ready,” about a transgender boy; and “Uncle
    Bobby’s Wedding,” about a same-sex union.

    At first, the school system gave parents notice when the storybooks
    were to be discussed, along with the opportunity to have their
    children excused. But school administrators soon eliminated the
    advance notice and opt-out policy, saying it was hard to administer,
    led to absenteeism and risked “exposing students who believe the
    storybooks represent them and their families to social stigma and
    isolation.”

    Parents of several faiths sued, saying the books violated the First
    Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion. The
    books, their complaint said, “promote one-sided transgender
    ideology, encourage gender transitioning and focus excessively on
    romantic infatuation.”

    The parents said they did not seek to remove the books from school
    libraries and classrooms but only to shield their children from
    having to discuss them. (The school system has since withdrawn two
    of the seven books, including “Pride Puppy.” In court papers, >>> officials said the books had been re-evaluated under standard
    procedures but did not elaborate.)

    The school system defended the curriculum, telling the justices in a
    brief that it featured “a handful of storybooks featuring lesbian, >>> gay, bisexual, transgender or queer characters for use in the
    language-arts curriculum, alongside the many books already in the
    curriculum that feature heterosexual characters in traditional
    gender roles.”

    The Supreme Court has in recent years steadily expanded the role of
    religion in public life.

    The court has ruled in favor of a web designer who said she did not
    want to create sites for same-sex marriages, a high school football
    coach who said he had a constitutional right to pray at the 50-yard
    line after his team’s games and a Catholic social services agency >>> in Philadelphia that said it could defy city rules and refuse to
    work with same-sex couples who had applied to take in foster
    children.

    Lower courts ruled against the Maryland parents.

    “There’s no evidence at present that the board’s decision not
    to permit opt-outs compels the parents or their children to change
    their religious beliefs or conduct, either at school or
    elsewhere,” Judge G. Steven Agee wrote for the majority of a
    three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
    Circuit.

    Judge Agee, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, added
    that “simply hearing about other views does not necessarily exert
    pressure to believe or act differently than one’s religious faith >>> requires.”

    In dissent, Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr., who was appointed by
    President Trump, said the parents had made a modest request.

    “They do not claim the use of the books is itself
    unconstitutional,” he wrote. “And they do not seek to ban them. >>> Instead, they only want to opt their children out of the instruction
    involving such texts.”

    The school board, in its Supreme Court brief in the case, Mahmoud v.
    Taylor, No. 24-297, wrote that the dispute was based on a
    misunderstanding about what lessons students were intended to draw
    from the books.

    “The storybooks themselves do not instruct about gender or
    sexuality,” the brief said. “They are not textbooks. They merely
    introduce students to characters who are L.G.B.T.Q. or have
    L.G.B.T.Q. family members, and those characters’ experiences and
    points of view.”

    "L.G.B.T.Q. forced acceptance"

    For me, LGBTQ is Democrats' Achilles' Heel.

    Somewhat; but see more below.

    It is bizarre to me that school communities are sending encouragement
    to students to change gender.

    *No* schools are doing that. *Some* schools have made a point of
    offering support to children who are "gender confused," but they are
    not "encouraging" them to change gender. That's a right-wingnut lie.
    Don't fall for it.

    Aiding and abetting.

    "Newsom signs bill to end parental notification policies at schools"

    "“California is the first state to pass a law explicitly prohibiting
    school districts from enacting forced outing policies in the nation,” said Mike Blount, spokesperson for the author of the bill, Assemblymember Chris Ward, D-San Diego.

    The legislation was passed in response to the more than a dozen California school boards that proposed or passed parental notification policies in
    just over a year. The policies require school staff to inform parents if a child asks to use a name or pronoun different from the one assigned at
    birth, or if they engage in activities and use facilities designed for the opposite sex. At least seven California school districts passed the controversial policies, often after heated public debate."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart Fowler@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jun 30 04:46:49 2025
    XPost: law.court.federal, alt.politics.homosexuality, or.politics
    XPost: sac.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

    On 27 Jun 2025, "Leroy N. Soetoro" <[email protected]>
    posted some news:[email protected]:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-lgbtq- books.html

    Maryland parents have a religious right to withdraw their children
    from classes on days that stories with gay and transgender themes are discussed, the court ruled.

    They always did have the right, now the progressives can't deny it.

    June 27, 2025
    Updated 11:21 a.m. ET
    Public schools in Maryland must allow parents with religious
    objections to withdraw their children from classes in which storybooks
    with L.G.B.T.Q. themes are discussed, the Supreme Court ruled on
    Friday.

    The vote was 6 to 3, with the court’s liberal members in dissent.

    The case extended a winning streak for claims of religious freedom at
    the court, gains that have often come at the expense of other values,
    notably gay rights.

    The case concerned a new curriculum adopted in 2022 for
    prekindergarten through the fifth grade by the Montgomery County
    Public Schools, Maryland’s largest school system.

    The storybooks included “Pride Puppy,” an alphabet primer about a
    family whose puppy gets lost at a Pride parade; “Love, Violet,” about
    a girl who develops a crush on her female classmate; “Born Ready,”
    about a transgender boy; and “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” about a same-sex union.

    What a load of crap.

    At first, the school system gave parents notice when the storybooks
    were to be discussed, along with the opportunity to have their
    children excused. But school administrators soon eliminated the
    advance notice and opt-out policy, saying it was hard to administer,
    led to absenteeism and risked “exposing students who believe the
    storybooks represent them and their families to social stigma and isolation.”

    Parents of several faiths sued, saying the books violated the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion. The books,
    their complaint said, “promote one-sided transgender ideology,
    encourage gender transitioning and focus excessively on romantic infatuation.”

    The parents said they did not seek to remove the books from school
    libraries and classrooms but only to shield their children from having
    to discuss them. (The school system has since withdrawn two of the
    seven books, including “Pride Puppy.” In court papers, officials said
    the books had been re-evaluated under standard procedures but did not elaborate.)

    The school system defended the curriculum, telling the justices in a
    brief that it featured “a handful of storybooks featuring lesbian,
    gay, bisexual, transgender or queer characters for use in the
    language-arts curriculum, alongside the many books already in the
    curriculum that feature heterosexual characters in traditional gender roles.”

    The Supreme Court has in recent years steadily expanded the role of
    religion in public life.

    The court has ruled in favor of a web designer who said she did not
    want to create sites for same-sex marriages, a high school football
    coach who said he had a constitutional right to pray at the 50-yard
    line after his team’s games and a Catholic social services agency in Philadelphia that said it could defy city rules and refuse to work
    with same-sex couples who had applied to take in foster children.

    Lower courts ruled against the Maryland parents.

    “There’s no evidence at present that the board’s decision not to
    permit opt-outs compels the parents or their children to change their religious beliefs or conduct, either at school or elsewhere,” Judge G. Steven Agee wrote for the majority of a three-judge panel of the U.S.
    Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

    Judge Agee, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, added that “simply hearing about other views does not necessarily exert pressure
    to believe or act differently than one’s religious faith requires.”

    In dissent, Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr., who was appointed by
    President Trump, said the parents had made a modest request.

    “They do not claim the use of the books is itself unconstitutional,”
    he wrote. “And they do not seek to ban them. Instead, they only want
    to opt their children out of the instruction involving such texts.”

    The school board, in its Supreme Court brief in the case, Mahmoud v.
    Taylor, No. 24-297, wrote that the dispute was based on a
    misunderstanding about what lessons students were intended to draw
    from the books.

    “The storybooks themselves do not instruct about gender or sexuality,” the brief said. “They are not textbooks. They merely introduce
    students to characters who are L.G.B.T.Q. or have L.G.B.T.Q. family
    members, and those characters’ experiences and points of view.”

    "L.G.B.T.Q. forced acceptance"

    Exactly what it is.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)