MD. FAMILIES SUE OVER LGBTQ SCHOOL READINGS

Say requiring kids to participate violates their religious beliefs

A Maryland county’s mandate that students read books with LGBTQ+ characters forces religious families to forfeit their beliefs or depart the public school system, lawyers for Muslim and Christian families suing the district said during oral arguments Wednesday in federal court. They are asking U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman to grant their children permission to opt out of reading those books now, before the school year begins, while a lawsuit over a permanent exemption proceeds.

The books are part of a supplemental English language arts curriculum the Montgomery County school system introduced this year. Teachers can pick which titles to read in the classroom. Books were suggested at every grade level, but the lawsuit focuses on those for elementary-schoolers. These include “Love, Violet,” a story about a girl who develops a crush on her classmate and contemplates how to create a card for her for Valentine’s Day, and “My Rainbow,” the tale of a mom who makes a colorful wig for her transgender daughter.

The parents filed the lawsuit in May, alleging that the school system — Maryland’s largest, with about 160,000 students — was infringing on their religious rights guaranteed under the First Amendment when it canceled an earlier policy allowing families to opt out. In court Wednesday, their attorney, Eric Baxter, said classroom discussions that spur on questions about sexuality and gender identity violate their religious beliefs.

Montgomery schools’ attorneys rejected claims that the supplemental curriculum encroached on anyone’s religious freedoms.

Alan Schoenfeld, an attorney representing Montgomery County schools, said that “exposure to these ideas doesn’t violate the Constitution.”

The plaintiffs cited no evidence that teachers were instructed to tell a student what to believe from the books, Schoenfeld said. He added that the earlier optouts were granted for any reason — political, religious or other — and as such, revoking them did not discriminate specifically against religious families. It applies to everyone equally, he said.

The central question of the case is whether the school district targets religious worship or is neutral toward it, said David Callaway, a religious freedom specialist at Freedom Forum, a nonpartisan foundation that studies the First Amendment.

He pointed to two previous First Amendment rulings that require the government to remain neutral toward religion. In the first, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court decided in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. In the second, Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, the court ruled that a Florida city’s ban on animal sacrifice breached the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.

On Wednesday, Boardman seemed skeptical of the argument that a supplemental curriculum could restrict parents’ ability to pass down their faith. “If you’re a parent ... you can still espouse your religious views,” she said.

Baxter argued that by law, schools in Maryland are already required to provide an opt-out for lessons in health class on family life and human sexuality, he said, and these books touch on the same topics of sexuality and gender identity. “There is no question these students are being taught this material in health class,” he said, adding that it was conflicting for students to be able to opt out of these discussions only in one subject area.

Boardman said she would make a decision on a temporary opt-out before the school year starts Aug. 28.