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.”