…I can’t even.
I mean, let’s just set aside the conflicting moral frames here. Those lovely queens are trying to do some work that both serves their community and acculturates a generation of kids into having less reflexively obnoxious reaction to people whose gender identities and expressions are not what has historically been considered standard issue. The Christian ninjas filling the lawsuit are viscerally freaked out by the flamboyance, and consider that acculturation to be akin to recruitment to a morally bankrupt cabal. The former are people securing their civil rights and assuming their place in a pluralistic society, and the latter are easily frightened bigots, but I get that the collision was in some ways inevitable. That’s just life, unfortunately.
But an establishment clause challenge? Da furk? Like, I’m sure there’s someone who is convinced this is some next level legal jutitsu- finding the other side wanting by their own moral yardsticks- but that person should probably not be left unattended without an adult. I’ve seen religious militants make these sorts of arguments before, essentially declaring that anything you’re fond of doing, or think is true, is thus functionally equivalent to a religion- which I could see making sense if living a biblical life is some kind of categorical objective, but this is akin to stating that a person that reads a bus schedule is a Bussitarian, or that your flyfishing club is in fact a temple. It’s just deeply, deeply lame.
