The appellant: If my son sees a picture of two mommies in a book and he
says “Excuse me, I don’t think God wants two women to be married.” Will
my son be disciplined for that?
[School board’s equity principal]: No, absolutely not.
[Elementary school principal]: No, but I think the teacher would probably
say something like “You know [son’s name], that’s something you want to
go home and speak to you . . . talk to your parents about.” And completely
taken out of the classroom . . . it’s a parent issue to discuss that[.]
 The appellant received a letter dated February 3, 2011
from the superintendent of student achievement, who refused his
accommodation request. The letter explained that students were
all expected to participate, “in learning activities that reflect the
diversity of our community”. The reason given for refusing the
accommodation was that allowing his children to be absent from
activities where “various dimensions of diversity are addressed”
would have a “negative impact . . . on other students and the
learning environment, as it fosters a climate of exclusion”.
 The appellant repeated his request for “religious accommodations” more than a year later. The school board again
refused the request by letter dated August 30, 2012. The application to the Superior Court was issued a week later.
 In my view, the school board’s factum fairly summarized
the appellant’s cross-examination evidence:
The Appellant conceded on cross-examination that he is not opposed to the
teaching of the topics listed on the Form as facts; rather, the Appellant is
concerned with a teacher stating that something is “ok” or “alright”.
In addition, the Appellant clarified in his cross-examination that he does not
seek advance notification of his children’s participation, or removal of his
children from class, even if what is discussed conflicts with his religious,
moral and beliefs if:
( i) It arises from student generated discussions;
( ii) The teacher participates because of student generated discussions;
( iii) The teacher provides factual information and not value judgments;
( iv) The discussion is limited to facts related to the proscribed topics
identified on the Form he submitted as long as the discussion does
not involve value judgments.
 To summarize the evidence, it appears that the appellant
agrees to his children being told about the fact of same-sex families or to his children being told that they must accept the
equality of children in same-sex households. He agrees this is
necessary in a society where all need to get along. While the
appellant accepts the equal dignity of each person, he does not