In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court's conservative majority has opened the door for religious objections to shape public education policies. Sam Alito's ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor allows parents to claim that LGBTQ+ content in school curricula violates their religious beliefs. This decision not only supports anti-LGBTQ+ sentiments but also permits an environment where strict scrutiny is applied to any parental complaint rooted in religion, indicating a significant shift toward accommodating religious ideologies in public education.
Technically, the Court's conservative majority ruled for parents objecting to a handful of books in Montgomery County's elementary curriculum that dared to suggest LGBTQ+ people both (a) exist and (b) might not be monsters.
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.
Collection
[
|
...
]