What a schizophrenic statement. In the first sentence you seem to have your mind made up that this is a cut-and-dry legal case. Then you seem to doubt this position, implying it's not fair to the child, so let's let this couple force a change in the rules at will. Do you actually support this (second) position?
I don't think it's fair to the other children or the other parents, who are enrolled there with the expectation that they are associating with other Christians. The freedom of association of the child of the homosexual parents does not trump the freedom of association of everyone else.
I don't expect their position, which was apparently the result of deceptive practice to begin with, is any more defensible than, say, a pair of devoutly Muslim parents who managed to hide their beliefs for the same amount of time.
What a schizophrenic statement. In the first sentence you seem to have your mind made up that this is a cut-and-dry legal case. Then you seem to doubt this position, implying it's not fair to the child, so let's let this couple force a change in the rules at will.
Schizophrenic?
Not any more than "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and render unto God that things that are God's".
Legality deals solely with "the things that are Caesars's".
Legality deals solely with man's law.
Morality deals with the things that are God's.
Something can be legal and moral. Something can be legal and immoral.
Legality and morality have nothing to do with each other. If you are in doubt, have a conversation with a trial lawyer.
As I stated in posts above, it is my belief that the child should be judged by the child's conduct and not the parent's conduct.
That is the issue you should be addressing.
Everything else you mentioned is a non-sequitur.