this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2026
491 points (98.0% liked)

News

34111 readers
3863 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The judge cited the Supreme Court's recent decision establishing parents' right to opt kids out of LGBTQ+ inclusive lessons.

A Boston judge has ruled in favor of a Massachusetts dad who sued his local school district to ensure his five-year-old son is never exposed to books featuring LGBTQ+ characters.

As the Boston Herald reported, the father, identified in court documents as Alan L., is described as a “devout Christian” who objects to the inclusion of certain children’s books featuring LGBTQ+ characters in the kindergarten curriculum of Joseph Estabrook Elementary School, where his son, identified as J.L., is enrolled.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Slashme@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

The case isn't finished yet, I see, so maybe sanity can yet prevail. So far it's just a preliminary injunction.

“The question presented here is not whether the viewpoints of plaintiff, or those of the school officials, are ‘correct’ as a matter of religious faith or political or social belief. Nor is it whether the materials should be part of the kindergarten curriculum for other students,” Saylor, a George W. Bush appointee, explained. “Instead, this case presents a narrow question: whether these specific defendants have provided the required notice and opportunity to review materials that this specific plaintiff may find objectionable, so that he may opt his child out of classroom instruction that violates his religious beliefs.”

In granting Alan L.’s request for a preliminary injunction, which will remain in place while the case proceeds, Saylor ordered the school and district to “make reasonable efforts to ensure that J.L. is not taught or otherwise exposed to the content of the Identified Books, whether in the classroom or any other school setting” and to ensure J.L. receives “reasonable age-appropriate alternative instruction.”

Lawyers for Lexington Public Schools, however, said the district looks forward to “aggressively defending against these claims.” In a statement, attorneys Douglas I. Louison and Alexandra M. Gill noted the district’s existing religious-based opt-out program and that the Supreme Court’s Mahmoud decision “made it clear that depicting the mere existence of potentially-offensive values or lifestyles is not enough to warrant an opt-out, and that it is the messaging associated with those potentially-offensive materials that determines whether an opt-out is warranted.”

“In this case, the materials are not associated with any LGBTQ+-focused curriculum or paired instruction, nor was the student even exposed to the two books at issue,” Louison and Gill added, according to the Herald.

Louison and Gill also noted the burden opt-out demands like Alan L.’s place on schools.

“This is not like a student with a peanut allergy, where the implementation of an accommodation to protect the student is reasonably clear,” they wrote. “Schools are burdened enough without having to scour the pages of a storybook for potentially gay-appearing characters. At what point, for instance, is a character’s haircut too short to presume they are a woman? Are two men sitting together at a restaurant presumed to be gay, or might they just be friends? There are innumerable scenarios like these, and schools are now being forced to make near-impossible judgments.”

[–] Bwaz@lemmy.world 6 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

If there's a gilod, this guy's kid will be gay, and not shy about it.

[–] Leather@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

As jesus preached "Don't be a bag of dicks!", and it's never stopped one one of these bigoted fuckers from cherry picking the message of their god. May his sons loafers be so light he floats.

[–] rossman@lemmy.zip 40 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Amazing they enroll someone in school to not learn things. Devout ignorance.

[–] whitecollarcry@lemmy.world 12 points 15 hours ago

well they identify as christians, and devout ignorance is literally what they subscribe to so it checks out

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago

That dude is probably on Grindr

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 40 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Kid is going to have a rude awakening when he runs a web query on his dad and everything that comes up has “gay” in the title.

[–] III@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago

Dad vs Reality lawsuit incoming.

[–] mcv@lemmy.zip 31 points 17 hours ago

As a Christian, I object to books featuring rich people, people who don't help poor people, people who don't heal the sick, and people who are mean to foreigners. Unless the perpetrators of those unChristian acts get their comeuppance, of course. Can I now demand from schools that my kid doesn't get exposed to those kinds of books?

[–] barooboodoo@lemmy.zip 20 points 19 hours ago

As the Boston Herald reported, the father, identified in court documents as Alan L., is described as a “devout Christian” who objects to the inclusion of certain children’s books featuring LGBTQ+ characters in the kindergarten curriculum of Joseph Estabrook Elementary School, where his son, identified as J.L., is enrolled.

[–] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 80 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Doesn’t this open the way for a parent to sue the school over Christian symbolism? A parent could should take that school to court over a Christmas tree.

[–] Sprocketfree@sh.itjust.works 13 points 17 hours ago

Pledge of allegiance should be banned too

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 18 points 19 hours ago

It's Heads-I-Win and Tails-You-Lose in the Trump-stacked court system.

You're looking at the judiciary as some kind of impartial machine, but you need to see it as a Vegas Casino, where you can maybe win a hand or two here or there but the game is stacked against you by design.

There is no world in which a conservative court bans Christmas Trees or Crosses or any other Christian iconography, because these courts are run by evangelical Christians for the benefit of evangelical Christians. You might as well ask a Chinese court to remove images of Mao from the classroom or an Iranian court to outlaw the Koran.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 34 points 1 day ago (1 children)

yes and you know it doesn't work that way

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I mean yes but also You're out of touch if you think the judges value internal consistency like that.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world 7 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

$20 says this fuck rubs it to gay porn.

[–] CXORA@aussie.zone 6 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

You honestly think its more likely that he's gay than just the standard kind of homophobic christian??

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 89 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And now because of the Streisand Effect, their child knows all about LGBTQ+ people while also having the knowledge that their dad is a piece of shit.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 28 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

And now because of the Streisand Effect

The point isn't actually to "protect the child from knowing". The point is to censor school faculty from speaking positively of LGBTQ+ people and to exclusively degrade and slander the community from reactionary media organs.

The kid will absolutely know about LGBTQ+ people, because their minister will give fire and brimstone speeches about how the community is full of sinful and debauched degenerates. The kid will be raised to hate and fear LGBTQ+ people because they will only be shown to him in the most negative light.

This lawsuit guarantees any public employee who contradicts this framing can be legally fired, that they can suffer civil and criminal liabilities that bankrupt them, and that the kid can be used as a weapon to justify this persecution.

[–] nickiwest@lemmy.world 10 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I think you're right.

I grew up in the '80s, and I heard more about "homosexuals" in church than anywhere else. (I also knew far more about abortion than anyone else in my kindergarten class. As an adult, I would say my understanding was not age-appropriate.)

The good news is that the final straw for me losing my faith was going to university and actually meeting openly gay people. They were nothing like I had been taught they would be. And the whole evangelical house of cards came crashing down for me.

I hope other kids in these sorts of households have similar revelations.

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 4 points 15 hours ago

these churches mistreat children for their own gain. it's sickening

[–] azureskypirate@lemmy.zip 4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I think you are right, and I find the thought of raising someone with the intent to keep them ignorant is gross.

As a teacher, one could not bring up the subject, but one could encourage critical thinking. 

If I had the opportunity, but with these constraints I would say:

"How do you know they are bad (or X opinion)? The Church thought Galileio was wrong about the sun being in the center of the solar system, and scientists thout Harlen Bretz's theory about the Missoula floods sounded too biblical. Anyone can be wrong; so it is important to gather information and decide for yourself."

And yes, I believe a child would understand the point, even if they don't get the references.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 15 hours ago

There's a very "We Report You Decide" attitude among liberal teachers. And while I don't object to it on it's face, I gotta say it feels more and more like bringing a pea shooter to a machine gun fight.

I wouldn't expect anyone - child or adult - to intuit morality. At some point you just have to hang the rainbow flag and declare your classroom a safe space for transgender kids

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 203 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Religion = denial of reality.

It should be illegal for religious people to indoctrinate children with their religious beliefs.
But in USA they have turned it on its head, and made it illegal to teach the truth because of religious superstition!

It's the same as the "basic biology" argument. Twisting something to the point it breaks in order to justify their hate. The Bible has gay people in it.

In the Bible, one of the people that Jesus heals is the slave of a Roman soldier. In the original Latin text, the word they use is for a kind of male slave kept as a consort/sex slave. King David, one of God's chosen, is a bisexual man who had multiple wives and a male "friend" who "loved him in a way that no woman ever could."

Being gay or bi was so normal back then that they never bothered to spell it out, not thinking that centuries later some heretics would twist their words to spread their hate.

[–] jonathan7luke@lemmy.zip 45 points 1 day ago (2 children)

In Texas, voters just passed a constitutional amendment giving parents the right "to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child’s upbringing" specifically for cases like this. Almost everyone I spoke to was in full support of it and kept saying "obviously a parent should decide what's best for their child". But as someone who grew up in a toxic religious family, it makes me so sad to see that there's no protection for kids in these situations. Parents can ensure they're doomed to a life of ignorance and bigotry before they even have a chance. :(

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 6 points 17 hours ago

Why even have kids if they can't be warrior-slaves for your crusade?

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago

Legalized child abuse.

[–] Rocketpoweredgorilla@lemmy.ca 149 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

I see this as a complete parenting fail. It is not your job as a parent to 'protect' your child from the world, it is your job to prepare them for it.

That poor kid is gonna need a lot of therapy later in life after he/she moves out on their own.

[–] CatZoomies@lemmy.world 65 points 1 day ago

Dad in the future: “Son, you never call or visit. You’re always so busy.”

[–] boogiebored@lemmy.world 44 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Parents like this ultimately hope the child never moves out. It is a cult.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] notwhoyouthink@lemmy.zip 6 points 19 hours ago

Teach them how to think, not what to think.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

You realize they don't really care? They just do it to exert control over public institutions. It's a way of threatening and eventually firing progressive teachers. Majority of those court cases are manufactured by right-wing think tanks and the parents are just some random people. In many cases the "victims" suing were not even real. It doesn't matter. The Supreme Court will eventually take the case and give Christians another win.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] RotatingParts@lemmy.ml 69 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Christianity has harmed more people that LGBTQ people have. Many types of Christians have to try and save you by converting you. LGBTQ folks aren't trying to convert you.

[–] AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Compare the number of Christians convicted of child sex crimes vs the number of LGBTQ+ who have and it paints a pretty one sided picture.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] E_coli42@lemmy.world 37 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Ban books that show people wearing clothes with mixed fabrics! Its against mah religion!

Why do fundamentalist Christians choose homosexuality specifically as their hill to die on?

Leviticus 19:19

“You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.”

Deuteronomy 22:11

“You shall not wear cloth of wool and linen mixed together.”

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 11 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Why do fundamentalist Christians choose homosexuality specifically as their hill to die on?

It's an easy out-group to identify and target.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] MantisToboggon@lemmy.world 54 points 1 day ago

I don't believe in Christians

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 19 hours ago

To think, if we'd had this kind of majority 20 years ago, we could have removed the entire study of evolution from high school criteria.

[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago

That is when you know you are losing when you have to hide the truth from your kid.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 55 points 1 day ago (8 children)

Ok, no more Bible. After all eve came from Adam's rib right?

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 35 points 1 day ago (8 children)

Now all I can think of is Eve pleasuring herself with a human rib.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 45 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Your Religion = What YOU can't do, NOT what I can't do.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›