Justice Brown's argument for forcing children to be indoctrinated with DEI in public schools

[Votto]

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asks absurd question during arguments over LGBTQ books in public school libraries | Blaze Media

Comments from the other justices appeared to show that the case would go in parents' favor.

www.theblaze.com

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was lambasted by critics online for a strange question she asked during arguments over parents rejecting controversial books in public schools.

The lawsuit accused the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland of violating the religious rights of parents with students in the school district. They objected to books that included transgender and gay characters being taught to their children.

The parents, which included Muslim and Christian Orthodox adherents, asked for an opt-out for their children from any exposure to the left-wing content, but they were denied by the district.

Attorneys for the parents argued that the school district was “compelling instruction designed to indoctrinate petitioners’ children against their religious beliefs."

While most court watchers agreed that the court appeared to be sympathetic to the parents' demands, one liberal justice appeared to be critical of the argument in favor of parental rights. Jackson simply said that parents had the option to pull their children out of school if they didn't like the curriculum.


"I guess I'm struggling to see how it burdens a parent's religious exercise if the school teaches something that the parent disagrees with," she added. "You have a choice. You don't have to send your kid to that school. You can put them in another situation. You can homeschool them. How is it a burden on the parent if they have the option to send their kid elsewhere?"

Video of her comments went viral on social media, where many disagreed with the position.

"You're forced through your tax dollars to fund education you fundamentally disagree with for everyone else's children and now incur the costs of educating your children on top of that instead of being granted a quite simple accommodation. Wow. Just wow," read one popular post.

"I shouldn’t have to invoke a religious exemption for simply wanting to protect my child’s innocence while they’re still in preschool or grade school," said another user.

"I'm sure she did NOT mean for the Parents to put their kids in 'another situation' and stop paying their school taxes," said another.

Other snippets from the hearing led many to suspect that the court would rule on the side of parents asking for an opt-out.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett opined that the books didn't merely assert the existence of LGBTQ people but included advocacy on the part of the LGBTQ agenda.

The message is clear, the public school system we are all forced to pay for is by and for the Democrat party to indoctrinate how they choose.

There is no other message here.

 

[martybegan]

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asks absurd question during arguments over LGBTQ books in public school libraries | Blaze Media

Comments from the other justices appeared to show that the case would go in parents' favor.

www.theblaze.com

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was lambasted by critics online for a strange question she asked during arguments over parents rejecting controversial books in public schools.

The lawsuit accused the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland of violating the religious rights of parents with students in the school district. They objected to books that included transgender and gay characters being taught to their children.

The parents, which included Muslim and Christian Orthodox adherents, asked for an opt-out for their children from any exposure to the left-wing content, but they were denied by the district.

Attorneys for the parents argued that the school district was “compelling instruction designed to indoctrinate petitioners’ children against their religious beliefs."

While most court watchers agreed that the court appeared to be sympathetic to the parents' demands, one liberal justice appeared to be critical of the argument in favor of parental rights. Jackson simply said that parents had the option to pull their children out of school if they didn't like the curriculum.


"I guess I'm struggling to see how it burdens a parent's religious exercise if the school teaches something that the parent disagrees with," she added. "You have a choice. You don't have to send your kid to that school. You can put them in another situation. You can homeschool them. How is it a burden on the parent if they have the option to send their kid elsewhere?"

Video of her comments went viral on social media, where many disagreed with the position.

"You're forced through your tax dollars to fund education you fundamentally disagree with for everyone else's children and now incur the costs of educating your children on top of that instead of being granted a quite simple accommodation. Wow. Just wow," read one popular post.

"I shouldn’t have to invoke a religious exemption for simply wanting to protect my child’s innocence while they’re still in preschool or grade school," said another user.

"I'm sure she did NOT mean for the Parents to put their kids in 'another situation' and stop paying their school taxes," said another.

Other snippets from the hearing led many to suspect that the court would rule on the side of parents asking for an opt-out.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett opined that the books didn't merely assert the existence of LGBTQ people but included advocacy on the part of the LGBTQ agenda.

The message is clear, the public school system we are all forced to pay for is by and for the Democrat party to indoctrinate how they choose.

There is no other message here.

She just made the case for school vouchers without actually trying to make said case.

 

[kyzr]

She just made the case for school vouchers without actually trying to make said case.

Maybe the ones who want to teach deviant behavior to kids should get their own school, and public schools should be based on the majority view? We do live in a democracy.
Catholics have their own schools. But they are expensive.
Are vouchers the answer, or majority rules in public schools without the gay shit?

 

[martybegan]

Maybe the ones who want to teach deviant behavior to kids should get their own school, and public schools should be based on the majority view? We do live in a democracy.
Catholics have their own schools. But they are expensive.
Are vouchers the answer, or majority rules in public schools without the gay shit?

Voucher would make public schools have to compete with others, and concentrate on the basics instead of social engineering.

 

[kyzr]

Voucher would make public schools have to compete with others, and concentrate on the basics instead of social engineering.

Doubtful. The teacher's unions and the progressives are locked-in on "grooming" public school kids with gay shit.
If "majority rules" in a democracy, school boards need to allow parents to vote on gay indoctrination in public schools. If no, then the gay promoters move out with vouchers. If yes, then straight parents can get vouchers.

I just don't like pushy minorities to force the majority to do stupid or deviant to their kids.

 

[martybegan]

Doubtful. The teacher's unions and the progressives are locked-in on "grooming" public school kids with gay shit.
If "majority rules" in a democracy, school boards need to allow parents to vote on gay indoctrination in public schools. If no, then the gay promoters move out with vouchers. If yes, then straight parents can get vouchers.

I just don't like pushy minorities to force the majority to do stupid or deviant to their kids.

Now is the time to propose changes. We have a majority of people sick of the Trans crap.