Facts of the Case

(Emphasis, mine)

In October 2022, Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland approved LGBTQ-inclusive books for its English Language Arts curriculum. These “storybooks” featured characters and themes related to sexual orientation and gender identity, including books like “Pride Puppy!” for pre-K students and “Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope” for K-5 students. 

Initially, the school board allowed parents to receive notice and opt their children out of lessons involving these books, in line with the district’s guidelines for religious accommodations. However, in March 2023, the Board abruptly reversed this policy, eliminating all notice and opt-out options without explanation, though they later cited concerns about high student absenteeism, classroom disruption, administrative burden, and potential stigmatization of individuals represented in the books.

Several parents of different religious backgrounds (Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox) sued the Board, arguing that the denial of notice and opt-out options violated their religious freedom and parental rights. The parents did not seek to ban the books or challenge their adoption into the curriculum; rather, they sought to maintain control over how and when their children would be exposed to content they believed conflicted with their religious duties to train their children according to their faiths on matters of gender, marriage, and sexuality.

The district court denied the parents’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding the parents failed to demonstrate a cognizable burden to their religious freedom, and the parents filed an interlocutory appeal, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial.

While I loathe social media nonsense like "read that again," "let that sink in," and other such superfluousness, the bolded-font passages above would have been unthinkable not all that many years ago. 

However, we've reached a point in this country where there are virtually no depths to which the left's perversive behavior won't sink. Even worse, it's no longer good enough for the rest of us to accept their behavior to do whatever they want with or to themselves behind closed doors. 

Nope, now we must embrace it  — and worst of all, they demand nothing less than the "right" to indoctrinate our children against the will of our parents. That is insane, and it must be stopped.

ALSO READ: Utah Becomes First State to Ban Rainbow Flags in Schools, Government Buildings—Will Others Follow?

School District Not Hiding the Agenda - Students Cannot Opt Out of LGBTQ+ Lessons Despite Parents' Wishes

As law school professor and political commentator Jonathan Turley wrote in a Monday column, Mahmoud v. Taylor is a case that could lead to sweeping changes across the country as parents object to the use of public schools to advance social and political agendas. 

Here's more from Turley:

These books are being required for children 3-10 years old. The parents have the stronger argument in my view. A ruling in their favor could prove one of the most important victories for parental rights in decades.

Parents objected in Maryland in 2022 when the county approved books featuring LGBTQ+ characters for inclusion in its language-arts curriculum. The county then announced that it would not allow parents to opt to have their children excused from instruction involving the storybooks.

Various parents sued, including some citing their Muslim, Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox beliefs. They lost in the lower courts, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

I'm hardly a constitutional expert, but I do know a thing or two about it.

The First Amendment states: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So if the First Amendment’s free exercise clause allows a person to hold whatever religious beliefs he or she chooses, as well as the right not to believe in any religion, and the right not to participate in religious activities, should a public school board  — or state — be allowed to prohibit the exercise of the above guaranteed religious rights by denying those rights to children? Of course not.

The parents cited two previous cases, as noted by Turley:

Wisconsin v. Yoder, where the Court declared that it was “recognized ‘beyond debate’ the First Amendment right of parents ‘to guide the religious future and education of their children.’” In that case, the Court held that Amish parents did not have to send their children to school after the eighth grade because it conflicted with their religion.

They also argue that the Maryland policy is neither neutral nor generally applicable as required under Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. That could produce the greatest number of questions from the justices today. The parents argued that the county has long allowed notice and opt-outs for material and instruction that address family life and sexuality. However, it refused to do so here.

The Montgomery County Board of Education argues that public education requires a uniform curriculum, including "recognition of our society’s diversity," and adds that allowing some students to opt out of the insanity would place an overwhelming burden on its schools.

Hold the bus.

So what the school board is saying is that a majority of students should be forcibly subjected to controversial subjects supported by a minority of people across the country. Totally makes (non)sense. 

And perhaps the so-called "overwhelming burden" would be non-existent if leftist school boards weren't hellbent on forcing the beliefs of the few on the many. But, hey — priorities.