this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2025
88 points (97.8% liked)

politics

24561 readers
2733 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
88
Court allows parents to opt their children out of school lessons involving LGBTQ+ themes (www.scotusblog.com)
submitted 2 days ago by crystalmerchant@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that a group of Maryland parents have a right to opt their elementary-school-aged children out of instruction that includes LGBTQ+ themes. By a vote of 6-3, the justices agreed with the parents – who are Muslim, Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox – that the Montgomery County school board’s refusal to provide them with that option violates their constitutional right to freely exercise their religion.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito acknowledged that “courts are not school boards or legislatures, and are ill-equipped to determine the ‘necessity’ of discrete aspects of a State’s program of compulsory education.” But he emphasized that “what the parents seek here is not the right to micromanage the public school curriculum, but rather to have their children opt out of a particular educational requirement that burdens their well-established right ‘to direct ‘the religious upbringing’ of their children’” under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor warned that Friday’s decision “threatens the very essence of a public education” because it “strikes at the core premise of public schools: that children may come together to learn not the teachings of a particular faith, but a range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society.”

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 21 points 2 days ago (2 children)

So, correspondingly, can I choose to opt my kids out of my public school's bullshit Judeo-Christian national origin stories and cultural norms like the pledge of allegiance?

Can I opt my kids out of civil rights history? Out of slavery history? Out of whatever I want? Or is this just The Gays I can opt out of.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Pledge of Allegiance, 100% you already can. Children are not obliged to participate is reciting it at all. They can remain seated and silent.

[–] teamevil@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I certainly don't remember it being an option for me in the late 80s. Had to stand for the Anthem and then Pledge. Participation wasn't really "optional".

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 5 points 2 days ago

It's been optional since 1943. Teachers don't know that, of course, and they're gonna swing dick about it if you resist, but the law is on your side.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 14 points 2 days ago

did your state pass a "parents bill of rights" law like mine did? call the school and demand a copy of the entire curriculum, and then tell them your child won't be participating in any lessons involving christian themes

[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

So parents have the right to opt their kids out instruction that includes straight and/or cis themes too, yes?

[–] Donjuanme@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They don't want to allow parents to micro manage, they just want them to be able to say what their children can and cannot be taught on a case by case basis, totally different.

Fucking this guy is supposed to be one of the most intelligent people in the country? Conservatives have no standards

[–] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

On the contrary, conservatives have one very strict standard:

"Will this candidate attack the people I hate?"

Everything else is secondary.

[–] renamon_silver@lemmy.wtf 3 points 2 days ago

🤮

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago

Kids when the bell rings at the end of gay class: "Yo heathen friend, what did they teach you in gay class?"

Like wtf is this 'supreme' court.

[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The primary question here MoCo has is how. Notwithstanding Thomas's deranged concurrence on how unacceptable it is the board is teaching this and not religion, the court doesn't suggest how to pay for the costs of having separate atomized instruction and instructors. If the kids stay home for the day then whatever. But that's not the ask in this case.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

The right to stunt your children.