The judge cited the Supreme Court’s recent decision establishing parents’ right to opt kids out of LGBTQ+ inclusive lessons.
A Boston judge has ruled in favor of a Massachusetts dad who sued his local school district to ensure his five-year-old son is never exposed to books featuring LGBTQ+ characters.
As the Boston Herald reported, the father, identified in court documents as Alan L., is described as a “devout Christian” who objects to the inclusion of certain children’s books featuring LGBTQ+ characters in the kindergarten curriculum of Joseph Estabrook Elementary School, where his son, identified as J.L., is enrolled.
Religion = denial of reality.
It should be illegal for religious people to indoctrinate children with their religious beliefs.
But in USA they have turned it on its head, and made it illegal to teach the truth because of religious superstition!It’s the same as the “basic biology” argument. Twisting something to the point it breaks in order to justify their hate. The Bible has gay people in it.
In the Bible, one of the people that Jesus heals is the slave of a Roman soldier. In the original Latin text, the word they use is for a kind of male slave kept as a consort/sex slave. King David, one of God’s chosen, is a bisexual man who had multiple wives and a male “friend” who “loved him in a way that no woman ever could.”
Being gay or bi was so normal back then that they never bothered to spell it out, not thinking that centuries later some heretics would twist their words to spread their hate.
I see this as a complete parenting fail. It is not your job as a parent to ‘protect’ your child from the world, it is your job to prepare them for it.
That poor kid is gonna need a lot of therapy later in life after he/she moves out on their own.
Dad in the future: “Son, you never call or visit. You’re always so busy.”
Parents like this ultimately hope the child never moves out. It is a cult.
Parents like this hope the child moves out when they graduate high school and get rich so their kid can care for them when they’re old.
Doesn’t this open the way for a parent to sue the school over Christian symbolism? A parent could should take that school to court over a Christmas tree.
yes and you know it doesn’t work that way
It’s Heads-I-Win and Tails-You-Lose in the Trump-stacked court system.
You’re looking at the judiciary as some kind of impartial machine, but you need to see it as a Vegas Casino, where you can maybe win a hand or two here or there but the game is stacked against you by design.
There is no world in which a conservative court bans Christmas Trees or Crosses or any other Christian iconography, because these courts are run by evangelical Christians for the benefit of evangelical Christians. You might as well ask a Chinese court to remove images of Mao from the classroom or an Iranian court to outlaw the Koran.
Pledge of allegiance should be banned too
it absolutely does
I don’t believe in Christians
Kid is going to have a rude awakening when he runs a web query on his dad and everything that comes up has “gay” in the title.
Dad vs Reality lawsuit incoming.
Ok, no more Bible. After all eve came from Adam’s rib right?
Some Athiest should sue to get all religious texts banned in that district, using this ruling as direct precedent.
Do you think they read the Bible? (Or read any books at all?)
Yeah, so men are giving their own rib. That’s kinda gay. Not that I mind being called gay, even though I’m straight (I tried sucking dick. Twice! Not my thing) 🤓
Your Religion = What YOU can’t do, NOT what I can’t do.
Ban books that show people wearing clothes with mixed fabrics! Its against mah religion!
Why do fundamentalist Christians choose homosexuality specifically as their hill to die on?
Leviticus 19:19
“You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.”
Deuteronomy 22:11
“You shall not wear cloth of wool and linen mixed together.”
This guy is probably one of two types: a) He’s a culture warrior who gets a little thrill if he makes life a bit harder for the gays because he was told they are the enemy or b) he needs to uphold his current cultural zeitgeist because if people are allowed to do the things that make them happy then what’s stopping him from banging his hot neighbor Greg and if he can do that he’s wasted his life married to a person he’s not actually attracted to and it was all a lie. So he goes super hard on being anti-gay to stop those intrusive thoughts. Stay occupied. Don’t think about it. Hate hate hate.
That is when you know you are losing when you have to hide the truth from your kid.
Death. At this point, I just wish death upon these hateful people.
Bigotry ftw
$20 says this fuck rubs it to gay porn.
The case isn’t finished yet, I see, so maybe sanity can yet prevail. So far it’s just a preliminary injunction.
“The question presented here is not whether the viewpoints of plaintiff, or those of the school officials, are ‘correct’ as a matter of religious faith or political or social belief. Nor is it whether the materials should be part of the kindergarten curriculum for other students,” Saylor, a George W. Bush appointee, explained. “Instead, this case presents a narrow question: whether these specific defendants have provided the required notice and opportunity to review materials that this specific plaintiff may find objectionable, so that he may opt his child out of classroom instruction that violates his religious beliefs.”
In granting Alan L.’s request for a preliminary injunction, which will remain in place while the case proceeds, Saylor ordered the school and district to “make reasonable efforts to ensure that J.L. is not taught or otherwise exposed to the content of the Identified Books, whether in the classroom or any other school setting” and to ensure J.L. receives “reasonable age-appropriate alternative instruction.”
Lawyers for Lexington Public Schools, however, said the district looks forward to “aggressively defending against these claims.” In a statement, attorneys Douglas I. Louison and Alexandra M. Gill noted the district’s existing religious-based opt-out program and that the Supreme Court’s Mahmoud decision “made it clear that depicting the mere existence of potentially-offensive values or lifestyles is not enough to warrant an opt-out, and that it is the messaging associated with those potentially-offensive materials that determines whether an opt-out is warranted.”
“In this case, the materials are not associated with any LGBTQ±focused curriculum or paired instruction, nor was the student even exposed to the two books at issue,” Louison and Gill added, according to the Herald.
Louison and Gill also noted the burden opt-out demands like Alan L.’s place on schools.
“This is not like a student with a peanut allergy, where the implementation of an accommodation to protect the student is reasonably clear,” they wrote. “Schools are burdened enough without having to scour the pages of a storybook for potentially gay-appearing characters. At what point, for instance, is a character’s haircut too short to presume they are a woman? Are two men sitting together at a restaurant presumed to be gay, or might they just be friends? There are innumerable scenarios like these, and schools are now being forced to make near-impossible judgments.”
is never exposed to books featuring LGBTQ+ characters
Bad news on that Bible, buddy
To think, if we’d had this kind of majority 20 years ago, we could have removed the entire study of evolution from high school criteria.
