Justice Clarence Thomas questions attorneys during Oral Arguments for Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case involving LGBTQ+ books in schools.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Ms. Harris, is there any daylight between your argument and petitioners' argument?
00:06Only as a matter of emphasis.
00:08I think they're making a more varied range of arguments with respect to sort of parental rights as potentially a separate strain.
00:15Here, I think we all agree that certainly one framework and the framework we're advocating for is to view this as putting a price on a public benefit of public education at the expense of forgoing your religious beliefs.
00:27Petitioners agree with that, and we agree with petitioners that the fact that there is a long history of parents controlling the religious upbringing of their children in the school context is, if anything, just illustrates exactly why there's an obvious burden here.
00:41What role does Yoder play in your analysis?
00:44Yoder is a textbook example of parents being forced to choose between paying a price, which is having to face severe sanctions, potential sanctions for not sending their children to school,
00:59or being able to exercise their faith by preserving their children, their teenagers, from being exposed to worldly influences.
01:05And again, that was contrary to the Amish faith, which prescribed that at ages 14 and older, that's the critical time for children to be closer to home and not be exposed to the worldly influences of high school.
01:16So I think we're on all fours with Yoder.
01:18If, you know, the idea that we're just talking about mere exposure here that is not something that would be cognizable just sort of runs flat in the face of that decision.
01:27Yes?
01:28Yes.
01:28Yes.
01:28Yes.
01:33Thank you very much.