Some progressive lawyers argue that these books are not so bad? Why do these religious parents get so upset about harmless children's books, they argue?
Suppose the shoe were on the other foot? Suppose a public school in Mississippi had a reading curriculum with books such as A Girl Named Jane: Born a Girl Always a Girl, and another entitled Romans Chapter 1: Daddy Teaches His Son About Sex and Marriage?
Or suppose in Prince and Knight, after Prince marries his knight in shining armor, instead of everyone celebrating the marriage, the book reads: "The King and the Queen wept sorrowfully, because there would be no future queen or future heir to the throne. And all the people wept with the King and Queen."
Now which families would wish to opt out? Would Justice Sotomayor now support opt outs for dissenting families? Should secular progressives be able to opt out of reading books that undermine the values they teach at home?
Do the parental rights vindicated in Mahmoud protect only religious parents with free exercise claims? What about the Free Speech Clause as a source of parental rights to opt out of compelled curriculum?
Now assume a public school district adopts a policy allowing biological boys who identify as girls to change clothes for PE class in the girls locker room. Parents of girls who do not wish to change in front of biological boys request an opt out from the locker room policy based upon their religious beliefs about gender and modesty. Does Mahmoud apply?
Or what about an opt out from a compelled pronoun policy that requires all students to use a transgender student's preferred pronouns. Opt out available?
No comments:
Post a Comment