The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the case brought by parents who said that their First Amendment rights were violated when schools used books that included LGBTQ+ characters.The decision was 6-3 along ideological lines, with the Republican-appointed justices siding with the religious parents who wanted to opt their children out of reading books like Prince & Knight and Uncle Bobbys Wedding in the Montgomery County, Maryland, school system. Related The Supreme Court is about to let religion ruin public education Two recent cases suggest that the era of secular schools is coming to an end. The Court does not accept the Boards characterizations of the LGBTQ+-inclusive instruction as mere exposure to objectionable ideas or as lessons in mutual respect,' Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. The storybooks unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender. Never Miss a Beat Subscribe to our newsletter to stay ahead of the latest LGBTQ+ political news and insights. Subscribe to our Newsletter today Regardless, the question in cases of this kind is whether the educational requirement or curriculum at issue would substantially interfere with the religious development of the child or pose a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices the parent wishes to instill in the child.Casting aside longstanding precedent, the Court invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure to subtle themes contrary to the religious principles that parents wish to instill in their children, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion. Exposing students to the message that LGBTQ people exist, and that their loved ones may celebrate their marriages and life events, the majority says, is enough to trigger the most demanding form of judicial scrutiny.The case involved several sets of Christian and Muslim parents who objected to their kids reading books that mentioned LGBTQ+ people. The district had an opt-out policy that they later rescinded because, the district claimed, the opt-outs were becoming unworkable.Some parents in the district protested to get the opt-out policy reinstated, while others protested in favor of learning about LGBTQ+ people.The books geared to younger kids are just showing a diverse range of families, said Christina Celenza, a mother of a student in the district, during one of the 2023 protests. We have a two-mom household, so my wife and I are really proud and out, and, of course, my kid in kindergarten or pre-K is going to probably talk about his family and his two moms. The district didnt budge, so several parents sued. Two lower courts denied them a preliminary injunction, but the Supreme Court just granted them one. The parents want the courts to ultimately order teachers to notify them of every possible discussion where LGBTQ+ people may come up so that they could opt their children out, lest their kids learn that LGBTQ+ people exist. They claimed that knowing that LGBTQ+ people exist is contrary to their religious beliefs and violates their right to direct their childrens religious upbringing.Public education advocates warn that the ruling could lead to even more requests for opt-outs of public education on wide-ranging topics including Earth Day, critical thinking, and anti-drug programs. Free speech and LGBTQ+ advocates denounced the ruling.This ruling is a deeply disappointing blow to the right to read under the First Amendment, said U.S. Free Expression Programs staff attorney for PEN America Elly Brinkley in a statement. It is a fundamental betrayal of public schools duty to prepare students to live in a diverse and pluralistic society. By allowing parents to pull their children out of classrooms when they object to particular content, the justices are laying the foundation for a new frontier in the assault on books of all kinds in schools.While religious liberty is fundamentally important, it should not force public schools to exempt students from lessons that dont align with their families personal religious or cultural beliefs, said Equality California Executive Director Tony Hoang in a statement. LGBTQ+ themed books are already among the most banned and challenged in school districts and libraries across the country. Todays decision will make it even harder for these books to find their way into the hands of students who simply want to read and who may find validation and acceptance in the process.Todays ruling does not change schools obligation to prepare students to interact with and thrive in a diverse and ever-changing world, said GLAD Laws Mary L. Bonauto. LGBTQ+ people and families exist, students in our public schools have LGBTQ+ parents, and books that include LGBTQ+ people should not be treated differently than those without LGBTQ+ people.The Courts decision does not require our schools to abandon these efforts. Parents, students, educators, and neighbors can encourage opportunities for learning about diverse people and families by staying involved with school districts, school boards, and in our local communities.Subscribe to theLGBTQ Nation newsletterand be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.