I've spent the better part of the day since the Mahmoud opinion was released talking a bunch of my LGBT friends off the ledge about the Mahmoud opinion. I thought it was worthy of a separate thread here because it's an interesting case where many folks who disagree with the opinion view it as an apocalyptic result and many who agree view it as a dunk on LGBT people.
The ruling, in my opinion, is neither, and to be quite honest, I was a bit surprised the ruling was not 9-0.
The fundamental issue here was the school district had a long-standing, broad policy of religious accommodation in schools. However, when it came to LGBT subject matter in curriculum, the district explicitly chose to exempt said material from the religious accommodations policy. The district made a point that the timing of such material being introduced into the classroom would not be announced in advance, attendance on those class days was mandatory for all students, and parents were prohibited from opting their kids out of that curriculum. The approach was designed to ensure students would be subjected to curriculum that may be counter to their sincerely-held religious beliefs.
More succinctly, the district was violating its own religious accommodation policy.
It's been a little more than 20 years since I spent a lot of time studying constitutional law, but one case in particular stood out to me when I was thinking about this case - Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972). In Wisconsin v. Yoder, the court held that Wisconsin's law requiring students to attend 12 years of public schooling violated the religious rights of Amish people who chose to remove their children from public schools after 8th grade. Yes, parents could opt their children out of ALL public education based solely on their religious beliefs.
It stands to reason, then, in light of Wisconsin v. Yoder, that parents should be equally entitled to opt out of certain educational matter on religious grounds and the precedent set by that case remains intact. I was not at all surprised to see Alito cite the case in the first paragraph of his opinion because it seems to be the strongest guiding force when balancing educational laws and requirements against First Amendment-protected religious beliefs.
What I'm seeing is some of those in disagreement incorrectly believe this ruling requires schools to ban LGBT subject matter from curriculum or even any mention of it by anyone while in a school. One comment a friend made to me was that his son would be prohibited from even mentioning his family, lest the school notify all parents his son wanted to mention his family and allow those parents to remove their children from school while his son spoke. Not only is that claim patently absurd, this ruling does not require schools to stop offering LGBT subject matter as part of its curriculum or prohibit students from talking about it. That's also the part that means this ruling isn't some massive victory against the "Alphabet Mafia."
Now I'm not an attorney, but my reading of the opinion appears to simply say the school cannot prohibit religious accommodation on any one single piece of subject matter, and ultimately places the burden to opt out on the parents or student who objects to the subject matter.
The thing I have had to explain to my friends today is that we can disagree with the religious beliefs of those parents all day long; we can think their decisions are ill-advised; we can think their decisions short-change their kids' ability to function effectively in a society where they may encounter LGBT people, but it remains the constitutional right of those parents to raise their children as they see fit, provided it does not harm or otherwise violate the rights of others.
tldr version: Mahmoud is a constitutionally sound ruling based in 53 years of precedent.
The ruling, in my opinion, is neither, and to be quite honest, I was a bit surprised the ruling was not 9-0.
The fundamental issue here was the school district had a long-standing, broad policy of religious accommodation in schools. However, when it came to LGBT subject matter in curriculum, the district explicitly chose to exempt said material from the religious accommodations policy. The district made a point that the timing of such material being introduced into the classroom would not be announced in advance, attendance on those class days was mandatory for all students, and parents were prohibited from opting their kids out of that curriculum. The approach was designed to ensure students would be subjected to curriculum that may be counter to their sincerely-held religious beliefs.
More succinctly, the district was violating its own religious accommodation policy.
It's been a little more than 20 years since I spent a lot of time studying constitutional law, but one case in particular stood out to me when I was thinking about this case - Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972). In Wisconsin v. Yoder, the court held that Wisconsin's law requiring students to attend 12 years of public schooling violated the religious rights of Amish people who chose to remove their children from public schools after 8th grade. Yes, parents could opt their children out of ALL public education based solely on their religious beliefs.
It stands to reason, then, in light of Wisconsin v. Yoder, that parents should be equally entitled to opt out of certain educational matter on religious grounds and the precedent set by that case remains intact. I was not at all surprised to see Alito cite the case in the first paragraph of his opinion because it seems to be the strongest guiding force when balancing educational laws and requirements against First Amendment-protected religious beliefs.
What I'm seeing is some of those in disagreement incorrectly believe this ruling requires schools to ban LGBT subject matter from curriculum or even any mention of it by anyone while in a school. One comment a friend made to me was that his son would be prohibited from even mentioning his family, lest the school notify all parents his son wanted to mention his family and allow those parents to remove their children from school while his son spoke. Not only is that claim patently absurd, this ruling does not require schools to stop offering LGBT subject matter as part of its curriculum or prohibit students from talking about it. That's also the part that means this ruling isn't some massive victory against the "Alphabet Mafia."
Now I'm not an attorney, but my reading of the opinion appears to simply say the school cannot prohibit religious accommodation on any one single piece of subject matter, and ultimately places the burden to opt out on the parents or student who objects to the subject matter.
The thing I have had to explain to my friends today is that we can disagree with the religious beliefs of those parents all day long; we can think their decisions are ill-advised; we can think their decisions short-change their kids' ability to function effectively in a society where they may encounter LGBT people, but it remains the constitutional right of those parents to raise their children as they see fit, provided it does not harm or otherwise violate the rights of others.
tldr version: Mahmoud is a constitutionally sound ruling based in 53 years of precedent.