"Supreme Court rules parents can opt children out of LGBT books"

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Friday in favor of parents opting their children out of school lessons featuring pro-LGBT indoctrination, over the objections of a Maryland school board.

Mahmoud v. Taylor concerns Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) mandating a list of LGBT reading materials for children in kindergarten through fifth grade, including “Prince and Knight,” a fairytale about a male knight and a prince who get “married,” a book on 50 “LGBTQ+” historical figures titled “Rainbow Revolutionaries” – including accused child abuser Harvey Milk – and the pro-transgender book “Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope.”

The district initially allowed parents to opt out but soon reversed itself in the name of fostering “inclusive and safe spaces for students.” Last May, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the parents’ request for a preliminary injunction while their lawsuit proceeds.

As LifeSiteNews previously reported:

In 2020, MCPS became the first school district in the country to introduce an “LGBTQ studies” course, which is now offered at several high schools in the district. The curriculum for the course was written by homosexual and “transgender” students and members of a local LGBT activist group.

MCPS includes “LGBTQ references” in high school U.S. history classes, as well.

The district, which celebrates “pride month,” has also performed audits to promote “LGBTQ related content” and examples in math, science, and social studies classes, including for grades K-5, according to an MCPS presentation from 2020. The presentation notes that MCPS has partnered with the Human Rights Campaign, the largest pro-LGBT pressure group in the U.S. and an outspoken supporter of “sex changes” for children.

The nation’s highest court agreed in January to hear Mahmoud v. Taylor, and now has ruled in favor of parental rights, in a majority opinion written by conservative Justice Samuel Alito that the parents are entitled to a preliminary injunction against forcing their children to partake in the books, agreeing they are “likely to succeed on the merits; they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; the balance of equities tips in their favor; and an injunction would be in the public interest.”

“A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill,” Alito writes. “And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of such instruction.”

“The practice of educating one’s children in one’s religious beliefs, like all religious acts and practices, receives a generous measure of protection from our Constitution,” he explains. “And this is not merely a right to teach religion in the confines of one’s own home. Rather, it extends to the choices that parents wish to make for their children outside the home. It protects, for example, a parent’s decision to send his or her child to a private religious school instead of a public school.”

“Due to financial and other constraints, however, many parents ‘have no choice but to send their children to a public school,’” Alito added. “As a result, the right of parents ‘to direct the religious upbringing of their’ children would be an empty promise if it did not follow those children into the public school classroom. We have thus recognized limits on the government’s ability to interfere with a student’s religious upbringing in a public school setting.”