As is often the case in order to come up with an answer (here a Supreme Court decision) we need to tease out what is the question.

https://substack.com/@benjaminkerstein/note/c-111655250

once upon a time, the West was predominantly monotheist of one of another brand, then the Word was driven out, and something filled the void, some call it the Old Gods, as Jonathan Cahn, noted, and so much of the World descended into Chaos, now we debate what type of Chaos we are facing, sadly most of the religious authorities if you can cite the Archbishop of Canterbury, are sadly inadequate, each iteration of same, so San Francisco New York, the great cities of this metropole has fallen away, interesting the Maryland case concerns the suburbs if memory serves, where Moslem and Christian parents objected,

But Gramsci lives on, in the Democratic (socialist) Party today in its efforts to capture the American Republic and bring us all under the totalitarian yoke. Equality in the cellar for us all except the horrible leaders of the Party, who will be the new pigs running a new Animal Farm. Beware, lest we, in our popular lethargy, succumb to a new Stalinist rule.

We mapped the human genome in the early 2000s and no genes were found that correlated with homosexuality – or transgenderism.

Which leads to:

2. The trannies successfully used the tropes launched by gays and lesbians a generation before to normalize behaviors previously considered dysfunctional.

As noted by some posters above, that legal normalization has now made opposition to the alphabet agenda officially equivalent to racism or chauvinism.

Everyone who thought they were being “nice” and “compassionate” for supporting gay marriage is responsible for this…. you let the camel’s nose in the tent, and now we must deal with the whole camel in the tent.

I am glad that the trannies’ extreme physical mutilation of kids got many liberals to wake up – but many conservatives saw this societal sucker-punch being set up by the Left, and gave warning back in the 70s 80s and 90s.

As a religious Jew I remember being pooh-poohed by people (some of them quite traditional) who were eager to go along with popular opinion and/or scared of being branded a “hater”….

Now we know it would have been better for all – including many kids falsely induced to adopt the gay identity – if parents and other sane grownups had stuck to their moral guns.

Which leads to:

3. We will have to roll this ALL the way back – eliminating gay marriage and talking openly about the continued dysfunctional, compulsive, and exploitative behavior among gays and lesbians. This behavior was not caused by our “homophobia” – and so has not disappeared after we destroyed the institution of marriage (which was the Left’s real purpose…)

it is very important to “go there” and talk about dysfunction and immorality, not try to avoid the real issues or cast this as “our family’s personal preference”… that is a frame that leaves the public square to the Lefties.

In fact, given the predatory recruitment of young people by various “mentors” the “kindness” of accepting the gay-rights agenda is actually a cruelty. The kids targeted for “early sexualization” (nice euphemism for molestation…) are typically already traumatized, abandoned, or isolated by family breakup or dysfunction.

Bleeding heart liberals have misguidedly let the creeps into the schools… that is what this story and others like it reveal quite clearly…

Well yeah! That is *the* question. The first question anyway, followed closely by the question of how the law should treat it.

I should make it clear btw that I’m totally on the side of the parents in this dispute. I’m just pointing out the way their views appear in light of current progressive doctrine, which in the case of gay rights and gay marriage is also the law of the land.

That racism and disapproval of homosexuality are not different in any meaningful way is hard dogma among progressives. Ask yourself how these parents would fare with the courts and for that matter with widespread opinion if they were objecting to depiction of interracial marriage. They may prevail with the Supreme Court as presently constituted, but it wouldn’t take much for that to change, especially as some of the conservative judges are quite willing to go with the progressive view on sexual matters.

Mac replied “Religious people are in the position of arguing for the right to practice the moral equivalent of racism and have the public schools cooperate with them.”

Mac’s reply (which I anticipated) begs an important question. Are these objections the “moral equivalent of racism”? I fully understand that Americans of a more progressive persuasion see it that way. I encountered this line of reasoning during my time working at a church which had several members who were several steps to the left of me on political, cultural, and yes religious issues.

I do think we should be cautious about how much we play the “views contrary to mine are the moral equivalent of racism” card. Does it have a limiting principle? What social, cultural, political policies can it not impose on people?

I appreciate the comment above which says this isn’t or *should* not be about religious freedom. Unless “religion” in this context includes any deeply held convictions about how human beings should relate to each sexually and about gender identity (whether how and when boys can turn into girls).

I think the case properly understood invites the Court to rule on where lines can be drawn and by whom and to what extent public education can say to hell with deeply held convictions of parents on certain issues. Perhaps whether there are any limiting principles when it comes to educating children.

You see a similar thing with politics at the municipal level, even in smallish cities like Boise, where I live. Our mayor is a politically ambitious leftwing Democrat, who seems to think the basics are beneath her. She doesn’t get it that the mayor’s job in a city this size is to make sure that the streets are safe, that the trash gets picked up, and the potholes get filled. Period.

That’s in the context of civil rights laws and practice as we’ve known them for the past 60 years or so. If the Trump administration succeeds in reversing that, it’s a different story.