Greg Piper at JTN, School district bans opt-out from LGBTQ lessons because too many families opted out
Maryland's Montgomery County Public Schools claims it was flooded with opt-out requests when the books were introduced in the curriculum in January, giving it legal justification, on logistical grounds, to issue a blanket policy of no exceptions and no notifications.
The district didn't provide a specific number or even vague range, however, in its memorandum opposing the motion for preliminary injunction by Catholic, Muslim and Ukrainian-Orthodox parents who filed the First and Fourteenth Amendment lawsuit in May.
The July 6 amended complaint adds plaintiff Kids First, a new unincorporated association of Montgomery County parents with children in MCPS or who would be "but for" the new policy. It includes "Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Latter-day Saints, and Jews, and is open to individuals of all faiths."
MCPS spokesperson Christopher Cram told Just the News he was seeking "any information available" on the number of requests the school invoked to justify the new policy but couldn't provide anything Friday. The districts' lawyers didn't respond when asked.
The district imposed the no-exception and no-notification policy March 23, a day after it told the media it would honor requests and issue notifications, which united parents across the religious spectrum in opposition.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a reliably liberal advocacy group on most issues, has been especially vocal and visible in challenging the policy.
"Public schools have an obligation to be inclusive and neutral," Maryland Director Zainab Chaudry said at a multifaith rally Thursday. "They can't be favoring one group over another."
MCPS is the only known district nationwide to go this far, setting "a dangerous precedent for more bullying, more harassment, more intimidation for children within schools," according to Chaudry. "We can't teach children allyship and tolerance and inclusion by forcing them to assimilate" and give up "their own diverse identities."
The legal fight over Montgomery County, Maryland’s post-Bruen restrictions on where folks can lawfully carry a firearm in self-defense has reached new heights of absurdity, with the county trying to convince a court to disregard a map highlighting all of the newly imposed “gun-free zones” and arguing that, in essence, transporting an unloaded firearm locked in the trunk of your car is akin to being able to carry on your person.
The Firearms Policy Coalition highlighted the ridiculous claims on Twitter on Monday, which came in the latest court filing by Montgomery County officials.
The county’s issue with the map that was included in a recent filing by the plaintiffs challenging the plethora of “sensitive places” is that it supposedly contains “numerous, readily apparent errors in both its methodology and conclusions.”
From the brief: "This is what Montgomery County looks like with the Section 57-11(a) 100-yard exclusionary zones (red shaded areas)" pic.twitter.com/zVptqBGeh3
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) July 17, 2023
For example, Carlin-Weber’s maps do not reflect the existence of the private residence (Section 57-11(b)(3)) or business exceptions (Section 57-11(b)(4)) where a firearm may be kept under the County Firearms Law. Using Carlin-Weber’s map as support, the Emergency Motion incorrectly concludes that “it is literally impossible to drive in or through the County…with a firearm without quickly entering one or more of these 100-yard exclusionary zones [set forth in Section 57- 11].” (Doc. 10-1 at 11). This is also inaccurate as a person can transport the weapon in a locked case, separate from its ammunition (Section 57-11(b)(4)).Which is not the same as carrying on your person, and that is the subject of the lawsuit filed by Maryland Shall Issue. But the county maintains that the plaintiffs “overstate grossly the reach” of the new law.
No comments:
Post a Comment