Christian family sues Bay Area school district over sex, gender lessons that violate religious beliefs

A Bay Area Christian couple is taking the Sunnyvale school district to court — alleging their child’s elementary school refused to let them opt out of sex and gender identity lessons that contradict their religious beliefs.

Justin and Rose Taylor, both devout members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, claim the district flatly declined to excuse their two elementary-aged children from lessons on gender transitions and same-sex relationships in violation of a Supreme Court decision last year that affirmed the rights of parents to opt out of such material on religious grounds.

That court decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor held that a group of Muslim, Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents in suburban Maryland could opt out of LGBTQ+ lessons at their public schools.

Yet the Taylors, Sunnyvale residents with four children, were told in February that similar LGBTQ+ lessons in Sunnyvale schools were simply “not optional,” according to a copy of a lawsuit filed in California’s Northern District on Tuesday.

“Our children are the most cherished part of our lives,” the couple told The Post in a statement. “We know and love them best and should be the ones deciding when and how they learn about sensitive topics regarding sexuality and gender.”

“Fortunately, the Supreme Court has recognized that right for religious parents nationwide. We hope that Sunnyvale can choose to acknowledge and respect our role as parents to direct the moral upbringing of our children,” they added.

The Taylors argued in the legal complaint that Sunnyvale’s LGBTQ+ instruction “goes far beyond teaching kindness and respect,” instilling what they call an “ideological view of gender and sexuality” that undermines their family’s moral values.

The district uses an LGBTQ+ teaching guide that tells instructors to incorporate sexuality and gender-related instruction into seemingly unrelated subjects — even math.

Bet they all sing a different tune when this goes to court and they find themselves losers in the family’s lawsuit. “A bit confused.” What on earth is “confusing” about the USSC ruling? You have to be kidding....

Hope the family has great lawyers and backup organizations. They are Mormon so I would guess they’ll find all the help they need legal wise.

“”Slayton wrote in an email in January 2026 that the district’s lawyers were “a bit confused” about how to respond to opt-out requests — then followed up with a formal response in early February claiming the Supreme Court ruling “does not override California’s statutory requirements governing instructional content,” according to the lawsuit.

“Accordingly, and after further review, Sunnyvale School District is not granting opt-outs from LGBTQ+-inclusive curriculum or storybooks that are part of our adopted educational program,” Slayton wrote in an email cited in the lawsuit.””

Thank you for referencing that article DFG.

We hope that Sunnyvale can choose to acknowledge and respect our role as parents to direct the moral upbringing of our children,” they added.

While the Taylors are commendably doing their best to respect G+d-establish authority, it remains that progressive Sunnyvale school district administrators have possibly broken the 14th Amendment (14A)-based federal law prohibiting the abridgment of constitutionally enumerated protections under the guise of government policy, constitutionally protected religious expression in this example, and should pay the penalty if so imo.

14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
18U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom [all emphases added], willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. —18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

In fact, note that UC Berkeley was found guilty of violating 14A (free speech) awhile back, so there is hope for Taylors.

UC Berkeley settles landmark free speech lawsuit, will pay $70,000 to conservative group (12.4.18)

But I wouldn't be surprised if California taxpayers effectively paid the settlement, defeating the purpose of the law if so imo.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.