Fury as Maryland parents are told they CAN'T opt their young kids out of LGBTQ classes

Parents cannot force a school district to let them pull their children out of classes with LGBTQ themes, an appeals court has ruled.

Three sets of parents and a parental rights group sued the Montgomery County Public Schools board in Maryland after it announced the classes in 2022.

They claimed not being allowed to opt out their kindergarten to grade 5 children violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of religion.

But the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals denied their request for a preliminary injunction 2-1 as the parents failed to show how the policy would infringe their rights.

Three sets of parents and a parental rights group sued the Montgomery County Public Schools board in Maryland after it removed opt-outs from LGBTQ lessons

They claimed not being allowed to opt out their kindergarten to grade 5 children violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of religion

The parents - one Muslim, one Christian, and one Chinese - objected to their children being exposed to themes they said conflicted with their religions.

The English language arts curriculum reading list included books like Uncle Bobby's Wedding, The Pride Puppy, and Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope.

Litigants insisted it was up to them to teach their kids 'what it means to be male and female; the institution of marriage; human sexuality; and related themes'.

What their children learn should be decided by them, not the schools, they argued, also claiming the subject matter was too mature for young children.

Two of the three judges disagreed, ruling the mere exposure of children to ideas against their faith was not by itself contrary to the First Amendment.

Children learning about issues they disagree with is 'part of the compromise parents make when choosing to send their children to public schools', they wrote.

What their children learn should be decided by them, not the schools, they argued, also claiming the subject matter was too mature for young children

However, the decision could change once the classes were actually being taught, depending on how the lessons were presented and their affect on students. 

'We take no view on whether the parents will be able to present evidence sufficient to support any of their various theories once they have the opportunity to develop a record as to the circumstances surrounding the board's decision and how the challenged texts are actually being used in schools,' Judge Steven Agee wrote for the majority.

'At this early stage, however, given the parents' broad claims, the very high burden required to obtain a preliminary injunction, and the scant record before us, we are constrained to affirm the district court's order denying a preliminary injunction.'

Judge Marvin Quattlebaum wrote in a dissenting opinion, said he would reverse the lower court's decision if it was up to him alone.

Litigants insisted it was up to them to teach their kids 'what it means to be male and female; the institution of marriage; human sexuality; and related themes'

'The parents have shown the board's decision to deny religious opt-outs burdened these parents' right to exercise their religion and direct the religious upbringing of their children by putting them to the choice of either compromising their religious beliefs or foregoing a public education for their children,' he wrote.

'I also find that the board's actions, at least under this record, were neither neutral nor generally applicable.'

Both judges were appointed by Republican presidents - Agree by George W Bush, and Quattlebaum by Donald Trump.

The three sets of parents joined forces with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which funded and litigated the failed lawsuit. 

They are expected to appeal to a higher court.