The U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision ruled Friday that parents are allowed to opt their children out of homosexual and “transgender” propaganda in school, noting that a school district forcing young children to be confronted with the perverse sexual program violates parents’ religious liberty.

The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, arose from a group of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, seeking to remove their young children from course material that “tells children as young as 3 or 4 to look for ‘underwear,’ ‘leather,’ ‘[drag] king,’ and ‘[drag] queen’ in a ‘pride’ parade,” and actively advocates gay marriage, “transgender”-identifying children, and that a “gender identity” can change at any moment.

While Montgomery County schools initially allowed parents to opt their children out, the number of parents requesting such accommodations was so high that the school district cracked down and forced the highly sexual material in front of children. A group of parents sued based on religious liberty grounds protected by the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court decided that the parents are entitled to a preliminary injunction — meaning they can pull their children out of the instruction — as their lawsuit proceeds. The three left-wing justices on the court issued a dissent written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

“[W]e hold that the Board’s introduction of the ‘LGBTQ+-inclusive’ storybooks — combined with its decision to withhold notice to parents and to forbid opt outs — substantially interferes with the religious development of their children and imposes the kind of burden on religious exercise” that the high court has previously ruled is unconstitutional, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. “These books — and associated educational instructions provided to teachers — are designed to ‘disrupt’ children’s thinking about sexuality and gender. … A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill.”

“We reject this chilling vision of the power of the state to strip away the critical right of parents to guide the religious development of their children,” Alito added.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon celebrated the opinion, stating, “The Supreme Court’s ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor is a major win for religious liberty and parental rights. The Court rightfully held that schools can’t shut parents out or disregard their religious obligations to their children.”

The decision in favor of parents’ rights and religious liberty came after a majority of the members of the Supreme Court appeared extremely skeptical of Montgomery County during oral argument, as The Federalist reported.

Far from the county’s argument that children were simply being told that homosexual unions exist, Justice Samuel Alito noted that the instruction actually injected a “clear moral message” that is favorable to homosexuality, “transgenderism,” and other deviancies championed by the left.

“They have a view that they want to express on these subjects, and maybe it’s a very good view, but they have a definite view, and that’s the whole point of this curriculum; is it not?” Alito said.

He echoed the same sentiment in the majority opinion, writing, “They are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.”

In the opinion, Alito then went through examples of books at issue in the case, and how they not only portray homosexual unions, but convey the message that they should be “accepted by all as a cause for celebration.” He continued to say that they are also designed to indoctrinate the young, impressionable readers at whom they are targeted.

It did not stop at homosexual unions, and Alito pointed to the push from the county to proclaim “transgender” ideology as similarly wonderful and as a cause for celebration, writing, “The book also includes a discussion guide that asserts that ‘at any point in our lives, we can choose to identify with one gender, multiple genders, or neither gender’ and asks children ‘What pronouns fit you best?'”

“The book and the accompanying discussion guidance present as a settled matter a hotly contested view of sex and gender that sharply conflicts with the religious beliefs that the parents wish to instill in their children,” the court concluded.

Alito also noted the captive nature of the students in the opinion, talking about the danger of undermining the religious beliefs of parents. “That ‘objective danger’ is only exacerbated by the fact that the books will be presented to young children by authority figures in elementary school classrooms,” he wrote. “In other contexts, we have recognized the potentially coercive nature of classroom instruction of this kind. ‘The State exerts great authority and coercive power through’ public schools ‘because of the students’ emulation of teachers as role models and the children’s susceptibility to peer pressure.'”

Before Friday’s ruling, the county also provided opt-outs for pretty much anything else, but not when it came to them indoctrinating children on gender ideology and homosexual unions.

And while the county maintained that children were not forced to “affirm” the message being sent by the material, Chief Justice John Roberts noted that these young children probably do not even have the mental capacity to reject ideas being taught to them by authority figures in school.

As Alito wrote Friday, “Young children, like those of petitioners, are often ‘impressionable’ and ‘implicitly trus[t]’ their teachers. Here, the Board requires teachers to instruct young children using storybooks that explicitly contradict their parents’ religious views, and it encourages the teachers to correct the children and accuse them of being ‘hurtful’ when they express a degree of religious confusion.”

According to the county attorney during oral argument, the curriculum was so unpopular that some parents asked that their child be removed from the instruction on both religious and non-religious grounds. Some parents just don’t want their children groomed by school districts.

Justice Elana Kagan even pointed it out, but nonetheless voted in favor of the district.