While I have no objection to these books and I think that normalizing non-heterosexual relationships is good, the fact of the matter is that doing so violates the sincerely-held religious beliefs of some parents. Religious beliefs have special constitutional protections whether or not they’re viewed favorably by society. (Protection of only those beliefs viewed favorably is no protection at all.)
So what about the religious protection for everyone else who doesn’t fall into that group? You’re arguing that it should be eliminated? That Amendment specifically mentions freedom from religion as well so why aren’t you making the case for that here too? It sounds exactly like you’re arguing that the only people who should be offered protection are those who you view favorably.
I’m not sure what you mean - I’m advocating for more protection. My whole point is that everyone including people with unpopular or offensive beliefs should be protected, because it would be unconstitutional (and intolerant) to protect only those groups with inoffensive beliefs (e.g. dietary restrictions).
The “protection” you’re advocating for is for the government to wipe the existence off the map of an entire other group who are doing literally no harm to anyone and just want to exist.
Your claim that normalizing (e.g. acknowledging they exist) non-hetero relationships is “unconstitutional” and “intolerant” is complete horseshit and if this were 1860, you’d be making the same argument against black people being free from slavery because it offends the white “Christians” who “deserve protection” even though the actual tenets of their religion states otherwise, both then and now. What is unconstitutional is the government enshrining into law the imagined beliefs of a very specific religion at the expense of all others. I hope you do believe in Christianity because with that belief comes the knowledge that there is a special place in hell reserved for the likes of you.
So what about the religious protection for everyone else who doesn’t fall into that group? You’re arguing that it should be eliminated? That Amendment specifically mentions freedom from religion as well so why aren’t you making the case for that here too? It sounds exactly like you’re arguing that the only people who should be offered protection are those who you view favorably.
I’m not sure what you mean - I’m advocating for more protection. My whole point is that everyone including people with unpopular or offensive beliefs should be protected, because it would be unconstitutional (and intolerant) to protect only those groups with inoffensive beliefs (e.g. dietary restrictions).
The “protection” you’re advocating for is for the government to wipe the existence off the map of an entire other group who are doing literally no harm to anyone and just want to exist.
Your claim that normalizing (e.g. acknowledging they exist) non-hetero relationships is “unconstitutional” and “intolerant” is complete horseshit and if this were 1860, you’d be making the same argument against black people being free from slavery because it offends the white “Christians” who “deserve protection” even though the actual tenets of their religion states otherwise, both then and now. What is unconstitutional is the government enshrining into law the imagined beliefs of a very specific religion at the expense of all others. I hope you do believe in Christianity because with that belief comes the knowledge that there is a special place in hell reserved for the likes of you.
Letting some students leave a class during storytime if their parents request that will, uh, wipe the existence off the map of an entire other group?