The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared likely to rule for parents who objected on religious grounds to books made available in a school district's elementary schools that feature stories about characters.
Members of the 6-3 conservative majority, which often backs religious rights, seemed sympathetic during the lively two-and-a-half-hour oral argument toward the claims made by the parents that the Montgomery County Board of Education violated their religious rights by failing to provide an opt-out for their children.
Watch 온라인카지노사이트 5 free wherever you are
WATCH HERESome justices indicated that the board's refusal to provide an opt-out might have been motivated by hostility toward religion.
At issue are books included in the English language arts curriculum in Montgomery County, Maryland. The dispute arose in 2022 after the school board in Montgomery County, a large and diverse jurisdiction just outside Washington, decided it wanted more storybooks reflecting LGBTQ stories to better reflect the people who live there.
Get top local stories delivered to you every morning with 온라인카지노사이트 DFW's News Headlines newsletter.
SIGN UP Ahead of oral arguments, dueling rallies took place outside the court, with LGBTQ activists holding rainbow colored umbrellas and one holding a sign saying, "I will not stay silent."
A few yards away, a group supporting the challengers held signs that read "Let parents parent."
One book, "Uncle Bobby’s Wedding," features a gay character who is getting married. Another, called "Born Ready," is about a transgender child who wants to identify as a boy.
Some parents objected on religious grounds under the Constitution's First Amendment, saying their children should be able to opt out of any exposure to the content.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch was one of several justices who raised comments made by members of the school board who said that the parents were promoting "hate" and were parroting the same views as white supremacists.
"Does that suggest a hostility toward religion?" he asked, citing a 2018 ruling in which for a Christian baker who refused to serve a gay couple on the grounds that a state civil rights commission had shown anti-religious animus.
Other conservative justices expressed disbelief that the school board found it too difficult to provide an opt-out.
“Why isn’t that feasible?" said Justice Samuel Alito.
"I'm not understanding why it's not feasible," added Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
The lead plaintiffs are Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat — a Muslim couple who have a son in elementary school. Other plaintiffs are members of the Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox churches.
They are not challenging the curriculum itself, just the lack of an opt-out.
A federal judge and the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the school board.
The Supreme Court will determine whether the school board policy burdens religious rights. The justices could then determine whether that burden violates the Constitution, or they could send the case back to lower courts to make that determination.
The parents, represented by the religious liberties group Becket, say that under Supreme Court precedent, they have a right to opt out of any instruction that would interfere with their children’s religious development.
The school board is “compelling instruction designed to indoctrinate petitioners’ children against their religious beliefs,” the parents’ lawyers wrote.
The parents have the backing of the Trump administration.
Lawyers for the school board said in court papers that there is no attempt to coerce children and that there was an attempt to allow an opt-out "until doing so became unworkably disruptive."
The lawyers wrote that the court record is "devoid of evidence that petitioners or their children are compelled or pressured to modify their religious beliefs or practice."
The school board also asserts that although the books are in classrooms and available for children to pick up, teachers are not required to use them in class.
The Supreme Court has previously backed religious rights in cases involving conflicting arguments made by LGBTQ rights advocates. In 2023, for example, the court of a Christian web designer who refused to work on same-sex weddings.
The court is hearing another next week when it considers whether to approve the country's first public religious charter school.
In its next term, which starts in October, the court will consider a challenge to state laws that ban "" aimed at young people questioning their sexual orientations or gender identities.
This story first appeared on . More from 온라인카지노사이트 News:
