Bob Chapek's response to Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' bill

[AdventureHasAName]

Don't worry. This will end up being another unconstitutional DeSantis championed law that'll get struck down or completely whittled down to the point of being useless.

It probably will be. I don't think it should be, but based on the current make-up of the federal courts, I assume it will be.

 

[lazyboy97o]

How exciting.

*fart noise*

So you will join the long list of people who refuse to acknowledge the stated intent and rejection of amendments?

 

[mkt]

Both my parents are 35+ year public school teachers and my mother was head of her teachers union for a decade. I don't hate public schools or teachers. I do hate people who think they should be able to indoctrinate children (on any topic) against their parents' wishes.

I hated algebra, and hate that my son will eventually have to suffer through it.

Maybe I'll sue the algebra teacher.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Both my parents are 35+ year public school teachers and my mother was head of her teachers union for a decade. I don't hate public schools or teachers. I do hate people who think they should be able to indoctrinate children (on any topic) against their parents' wishes.

Public schools and teachers (along with the LGBTQ+ community) will be harmed by the lawsuits this bill allows. Public schools simply don't have the means to constantly defend themselves against frivolous lawsuits.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

So you will join the long list of people who refuse to acknowledge the stated intent and rejection of amendments?

From a statutory analysis perspective (I'm a lawyer), I value stated intent (minimally, but it is of value - I prefer a "plain-meaning" interpretation) and couldn't care less about rejected amendments. Laws stand on their own language, not the language the drafters chose not to use and the legislature chose not to adopt.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

I hated algebra, and hate that my son will eventually have to suffer through it.

Maybe I'll sue the algebra teacher.

Hey, if there's a law prohibiting it (and providing a remedy in civil court)? Have at it.

 

[fgmnt]

From a statutory analysis perspective (I'm a lawyer), I value stated intent (minimally, but it is of value - I prefer a "plain-meaning" interpretation) and couldn't care less about rejected amendments. Laws stand on their own language, not the language the drafters chose not to use and the legislature chose not to adopt.

What a breathtaking insight.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

What a breathtaking insight.

He asked. I answered.

 

[fgmnt]

He asked. I answered.

i was more speaking to your offering up of your credentials unprompted and what those credentials are

 

[lazyboy97o]

From a statutory analysis perspective (I'm a lawyer), I value stated intent (minimally, but it is of value - I prefer a "plain-meaning" interpretation) and couldn't care less about rejected amendments. Laws stand on their own language, not the language the drafters chose not to use and the legislature chose not to adopt.

Then do explain to us how one conforms to nonexistent definitions and standards? How were Florida’s existing laws on sexual education deficient? How does this legislation fix those deficiencies?

 

[Casper Gutman]

From a statutory analysis perspective (I'm a lawyer), I value stated intent (minimally, but it is of value - I prefer a "plain-meaning" interpretation) and couldn't care less about rejected amendments. Laws stand on their own language, not the language the drafters chose not to use and the legislature chose not to adopt.

So you’re a lawyer who feels this is a well-crafted bill? Could you point me to some legal experts (not political pundits) who share this opinion and feel the negative media depictions of it are unfair? I asked this several dozen pages ago and never got any responses.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

i was more speaking to your offering up of your credentials unprompted and what those credentials are

It provides context to explain why I "refuse to acknowledge ... rejection of amendments."

 

[fgmnt]

It provides context to explain why I "refuse to acknowledge ... rejection of amendments."

I understand why you think it’s relevant, but i don’t know if you understand why i find it interesting.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Then do explain to us how one conforms to nonexistent definitions and standards? How were Florida’s existing laws on sexual education deficient? How does this legislation fix those deficiencies?

I do not know what any previous laws might have said, nor if they were or were not "deficient." It doesn't interest me. If you'd like to discuss the current legislation, I'm happy to do so.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Boil it down to it's bare essence and this is simply an argument about indoctrination of children. Liberals believe they should be able to indoctrinate other peoples' kids on any topic at any age with no pushback (and be paid by the taxpayers to do it). And Conservatives believe they (and only they) should control what is taught to their own children regarding sexual orientation (and a multitude of other political divisive topics). Everything else is just talking points, political double speak and posturing.

Liberals want to teach children that being gay (and trans, and every other non-straight sexual proclivity a person might describe themselves as at any given moment) is normal; as early in childhood as possible because the younger a person adopts a belief, the more likely they are to believe it strongly for the rest of their lives. And Conservatives want their childrens' educations on sexual orientation to come from sources they (and only they) deem appropriate.

If you want to understand what is going on, read up on Joe Camel.

I want to return to this post, which started the present conversation and which you appear to have backed away from. You say “this,” presumably the debate over the bill, is in its “bare essence” an argument about “indoctrination of children.” You explain that the nature of this indoctrination is that “liberals want to teach children that being gay… is normal.” You reinforce this point and emphasize its negative connotations by invoking Joe Camel in your last sentence - Camel, of course, being a figure used to convince children to engage in harmful behavior. Your point seems very clear. Liberals (people against this bill) want to indoctrinate children into harmful, abnormal behavior and conservatives (against this bill) want to prevent it. Yet a few posts later you claim you don’t feel this bill is intended to stop children from learning LGBTQ individuals are normal. Could you clear up this seeming contradiction?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I do not know what any previous laws might have said, nor if they were or were not "deficient." It doesn't interest me. If you'd like to discuss the current legislation, I'm happy to do so.

You say that, but you refuse to address the lack of standards. The current legislation must address some issue, right?

 

[AdventureHasAName]

So you’re a lawyer who feels this is a well-crafted bill? Could you point me to some legal experts (not political pundits) who share this opinion and feel the negative media depictions of it are unfair? I asked this several dozen pages ago and never got any responses.

I read the bill myself and offered my opinion. I really don't care what "legal experts" have to say on the matter. I consider myself to be well-educated on the legal system (particularly school law and statutory analysis, although school law is not my area of practice) and have 20+ years experience - I don't run to other "experts" before generating my own opinion on a topic. If someone wants to convince me I'm wrong based on some other lawyer's analysis, they are welcome to do so. And probably most importantly, I've been a lawyer long enough to know that absolutely nothing written on the page adopted by a legislature matters in the end. The only thing that matters is the political beliefs of the judge (or panel of judges) that eventually rules on the laws constitutionality (state or federal).

 

[AdventureHasAName]

I want to return to this post, which started the present conversation and which you appear to have backed away from. You say “this,” presumably the debate over the bill, is in its “bare essence” an argument about “indoctrination of children.”

Yup.

You explain that the nature of this indoctrination is that “liberals want to teach children that being gay… is normal.”

Yup.

You reinforce this point and emphasize its negative connotations by invoking Joe Camel in your last sentence - Camel, of course, being a figure used to convince children to engage in harmful behavior. Your point seems very clear.

Apparently not because you missed it. The lesson everyone learned from the cigarette advertisement lawsuits of the 70s and 80s is that by the time a person becomes an adult, their personal preferences are like concrete. For the vast majority of people, if they like a particular brand of soda, or candy bar, or fast food restaurant, or musician, or movie star (or cigarette or beer) when they are 18 years old, that is NEVER going to change for the rest of their lives. If Coca-Cola hasn't convinced a person that their cola tastes better than Pepsi before they reach adulthood, it is an almost impossible task to convince them after they become an adult. Similarly, if (even without actually smoking a cigarette) Camel cigarettes was able to utilize a cartoon Joe Camel to convince children that Camel cigarettes were "cooler" than Newports or Marlboro (and its Marlboro Man cowboy), then it would be trapping those childrens' cigarette brand preferences for the rest of their lives (if they eventually became smokers).

Liberals (people against this bill) want to indoctrinate children into harmful, abnormal behavior and conservatives (against this bill) want to prevent it. Yet a few posts later you claim you don’t feel this bill is intended to stop children from learning LGBTQ individuals are normal. Could you clear up this seeming contradiction?

Some conservative parents certainly feel this way. Other parents (conservative, moderate and liberal) feel there's nothing harmful at all about gay (and/or transsexual, and/or any other non-straight sexual orientation or abnormal gender identity), but still believe it is inappropriate to teach to children of a certain age (in this instance, the primary argument is over children between the ages of 5 and 10 - kindergarten to 3rd grade). And still other parents believe there is nothing harmful and that it is completely appropriate to teach to children between 5 and 10 years old, but don't want the public school teachers to be the ones providing any education or instruction on the topic (because they want to do it themselves, absent influence of other adults). This particular bill is agnostic as to the harmfulness (or benefit) of non-straight sexual orientation and non-binary gender identity ... it simply says nothing on the topic is to be taught to kids this age by public school teachers. It bans the instruction of the merits of straight sexual orientation and binary gender identities just the same. It stops all of it.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

You say that, but you refuse to address the lack of standards. The current legislation must address some issue, right?

No, it is intentionally crafted to not address any single particular type of sexual education. It is agnostic on the merits (or harmfulness, or in-between) of any sexual orientation or gender identity. It simply says regardless of the type of instruction, it is prohibited in kindergarten through third grade because no instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity at that age is appropriate.

 

[lazyboy97o]

No, it is intentionally crafted to not address any single particular type of sexual education. It is agnostic on the merits (or harmfulness, or in-between) of any sexual orientation or gender identity. It simply says regardless of the type of instruction, it is prohibited in kindergarten through third grade because no instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity at that age is appropriate.

The law applies to more than just primary school. Again I ask, how does a teacher follow the law and conform to standards that do not exist and the law does not require to exist before going into effect?