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

[TP2000]

Please stop. 2nd graders ARE NOT talking about sexuality.

Then this whole issue is moot.

If 2nd graders aren't being led in discussing sexuality or sexual orientation in the classroom, then why does anyone care that the Florida legislature is banning that discussion in 2nd grade that wasn't taking place to begin with?

“classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”

If sexuality is not a classroom topic for 7 year olds, no one has anything to worry about. So why did Bob Chapek send out that email to begin with?

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Then this whole issue is moot.

If 2nd graders aren't being led in discussing sexuality or sexual orientation in the classroom, then why does anyone care that the Florida legislature is banning that discussion in 2nd grade that wasn't taking place to begin with?

“classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”

If sexuality is not a classroom topic for 7 year olds, no one has anything to worry about. So why did Bob Chapek send out that email to begin with?

Why was the bill proposed in the first place if there were already laws on the books regarding sex-ed and parental rights?

Here's the man behind the bill explaining EXACTLY why it's so important to him. Watch the video through to the end. You'll be enlightened.

 

[No Name]

Why doesn’t Disney just stay out of the real world, out of politics and social issues and just be the Disney it’s always been?

I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not. Disney has supported LGBTQ+ rights and fair treatment to an extent since the days before the Q or the +. For example, any non-profits that discriminate against gay people (like the Boy Scouts) would be denied donations like free park tickets.

Aside from that, “staying out the real world” is just foolish and irresponsible for an employer like Disney to do.

 

[No Name]

This is indeed poorly worded, vague legislation. But I don't think it's vague enough to even remotely encompass the hypothetical you proposed.




I think you guys are very head-in-the-sand about what activist teachers are pushing in classrooms when it comes to gender identity. To the extent that this is a "don't say ___________" bill, it's closer to a "don't say trans" bill than a "don't say gay" bill. There are absolutely activist teachers trying to push prepubescent kids to "come out" as trans when there's no indication that they are or ever will be.

I know somehow "trans" and "gay" and a thousand other things that don't really have anything to do with one another have gotten lumped together under the umbrella of LGBTQ+, but they're separating things. An activist teacher or even a permissive curriculum isn't going to turn kids gay, of course that's ridiculous and anyone suggesting it is ridiculous. But they absolutely can plant the seeds of gender dysphoria in kids who wouldn't otherwise experience it and, in effect, "turn kids trans."


No seven year old has ever "chosen new pronouns" without being pushed into it.

And that's what we're talking about here. It's not about the delegitimization of ACTUAL trans people. It's about the delegitimization of trans-as-a-fad. My cousin (early 20s) was trans on three different occasions in high school. She was also a lesbian at several points and now she's a cis woman engaged to a man. She was never ACTUALLY trans or a lesbian, but being transgressive with your sexual identity and sexual orientation is just a thing kids do these days. Twenty years ago, these would have been the emo or goth kids.

Straight kids aren’t influenced to become gay or trans. They’re encouraged to express their true identity which is already established. Your entire thought process here is scientifically bull, not to mention implying that being gay or trans is worse than being straight.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Straight kids aren’t influenced to become gay or trans. They’re encouraged to express their true identity which is already established. Your entire thought process here is scientifically bull, not to mention implying that being gay or trans is worse than being straight.

Kids who AREN'T trans are being talked into thinking they are. Gender dysphoria is being created out of the blue. Kids who have a sense that they don't quite fit in are leaping to the conclusion that it's because they were "assigned the wrong gender at birth" or some such nonsense.

I'm not talking about ACTUAL trans people, I'm talking about impressionable kids who are going through the normal bumps and bruises of growing up, getting cajoled by adults with a social/political agenda into thinking that a chest binder and a new name are the key to happiness.

 

[No Name]

Kids who AREN'T trans are being talked into thinking they are. Gender dysphoria is being created out of the blue. Kids who have a sense that they don't quite fit in are leaping to the conclusion that it's because they were "assigned the wrong gender at birth" or some such nonsense.

I'm not talking about ACTUAL trans people, I'm talking about impressionable kids who are going through the normal bumps and bruises of growing up, getting cajoled by adults with a social/political agenda into thinking that a chest binder and a new name are the key to happiness.

Oh I understand what you’re saying, it’s just completely wrong.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Oh I understand what you’re saying, it’s just completely wrong.

He believes exactly what the bill's authors want him to believe.

Because kids don't talk to each other about things their parents wish they didn't. /s

 

[TP2000]

Disney has supported LGBTQ+ rights and fair treatment to an extent since the days before the Q or the +. For example, any non-profits that discriminate against gay people (like the Boy Scouts) would be denied donations like free park tickets.

Let's also be honest and admit that Disney's support of the 2SLGBTQQIA+ Community is only a fairly recent accomplishment.

In the 1980's, Disneyland's security guards infamously corralled gays and Lesbians dancing together at Tomorrowland Terrace or Videopolis and kicked them out of the park. For the sin of dancing together.

Disneyland Drops Policy Prohibiting Same-Sex Dancing

Disneyland administrators have quietly reversed a 28-year-old policy that prohibited partners of the same sex from dancing together in the Magic Kingdom.

www.latimes.com

I spoke with a gay friend who was at Jack Lindquist's (former Disneyland President and all around good guy, all things considered) retirement party in Mickey's Toontown in 1993. Jack Lindquist had worked at the park since 1955, he was a legend. The gag was they gave him a boat as a retirement gift, because he was famously not a fan of boating. They raised this prop 25 foot Bayliner on a crane from up behind the Toontown hills, dramatically spotlighted in the Anaheim evening. The crowd roared it's approval at the gag gift. Jack Lindquist, standing on stage in front of hundreds of Disneyland suits and fellow CM's bellowed into his microphone "What the hell do I want a boat for? I hate boats! Me on a boat is like a ****** (six letter slur for a gay man) in a French whorehouse!" Just then the crane pretended to have mechanical issues, and the prop boat crashed to the ground to great effect behind the Toontown hills. The crowd roared with laughter at the boat stunt, and Jack's lewd and homophobic comments about how worthless it was to him. Hilarious!

That was 1993. Later in the 1990's, Jack Lindquist was honored with a window on Main Street that proclaims him the "honorary mayor of Disneyland".

On other message boards back in the 2000's, gay CM's reported that Disneyland management told them to "butch it up" if they wanted to keep working on traditionally masculine rides like the Jungle Cruise or Canoes.

This was all stuff within the past few decades. It wasn't ancient history like 1964, when Walt Disney fired Tommy Kirk from the Disney Studios for being a gay man in a relationship with another gay actor.

The point is that yes, Disney of 2022 is a fairly liberal company operating in a very liberal Hollywood industry. But Disney hasn't always been that way. They weren't leading the charge on gay rights in the late 20th century. Instead, they were employing CM's to evict gay dancers from the park and had executives making lewd gay jokes at company events.

So let's not pretend Disney has always been some shining beacon of liberal ideals and gay rights. They are there to make a buck, and that all depends on where the money comes from. Right now, a lot of their money comes from the state of Florida, so they are inbetween a rock and a hard place. Between the democratically elected leaders of the state of Florida, and some employees and Twitter accounts that smell blood in the water. I don't envy them.

 

[WDWTrojan]

Well, then why are people upset about it? I'm just really confused here, although to be honest I've only heard about this news briefly. It's not a big news item in Southern California, even over on the Disneyland board here.

So basically, sex and sexuality aren't discussed in pre-school through 3rd grade in Florida. Just like I imagine Florida schools also don't discuss personal finance, the Watergate scandal, or Driver Training in those lower grades either.

So the Florida legislature passed a law banning the discussion of topics in preschool to 3rd grade that aren't even being discussed or mentioned anyway? So then... what's the problem exactly? That Bob Chapek didn't declare open hostility to the Governor of Florida? Or that Chapek didn't choose a side quickly enough?

I think what you are missing is three things:

1) The K-3rd grade caveat is only a small portion of the 30+ page bill. This specifically covers all topics related to sex and sexuality. It singles out sexuality as something that is verboten from being discussed, which sounds fine, until you realize that little kids are often asked to draw their family, discuss their family tree or show family photos. All of this can lead to bullying amongst kids that have LGBT parents. Teachers have a duty to stop that bullying and, obviously, the best way to do that is to explain that some kids can have two moms or two dads or just one parent, etc. and that of those things are just fine with none lesser than another. This law forbids that discussion from even happening, or else the teacher can be sued into oblivion.

2) The rest of the bill is exceptionally broad and forces schools, of any age, to out kids to their parents. With Florida being Florida, many kids no doubt come from bigoted or homophobic homes and force outing them will no doubt bring upon truly awful levels of harm to a demographic that is already many times more likely to self harm and suffer from depression.

3) The bill also allows parents to sue if they feel the subject matter being taught is "inappropriate," regardless of the grade level. As to what inappropriate means, it's far too broad of a bill to say.

 

[No Name]

Let's also be honest and admit that Disney's support of the 2SLGBTQQIA+ Community is only a fairly recent accomplishment.

In the 1980's, Disneyland's security guards infamously corralled gays and Lesbians dancing together at Tomorrowland Terrace or Videopolis and kicked them out of the park. For the sin of dancing together.

Disneyland Drops Policy Prohibiting Same-Sex Dancing

Disneyland administrators have quietly reversed a 28-year-old policy that prohibited partners of the same sex from dancing together in the Magic Kingdom.

www.latimes.com

I spoke with a gay friend who was at Jack Lindquist's (former Disneyland President and all around good guy, all things considered) retirement party in Mickey's Toontown in 1993. Jack Lindquist had worked at the park since 1955, he was a legend. The gag was they gave him a boat as a retirement gift, because he was famously not a fan of boating. They raised this prop 25 foot Bayliner on a crane from up behind the Toontown hills, dramatically spotlighted in the Anaheim evening. The crowd roared it's approval at the gag gift. Jack Lindquist, standing on stage in front of hundreds of Disneyland suits and fellow CM's bellowed into his microphone "What the hell do I want a boat for? I hate boats! Me on a boat is like a ****** (six letter slur for a gay man) in a French whorehouse!" Just then the crane pretended to have mechanical issues, and the prop boat crashed to the ground to great effect behind the Toontown hills. The crowd roared with laughter at the boat stunt, and Jack's lewd and homophobic comments about how worthless it was to him. Hilarious!

That was 1993. Later in the 1990's, Jack Lindquist was honored with a window on Main Street that proclaims him the "honorary mayor of Disneyland".

On other message boards back in the 2000's, gay CM's reported that Disneyland management told them to "butch it up" if they wanted to keep working on traditionally masculine rides like the Jungle Cruise or Canoes.

This was all stuff within the past few decades. It wasn't ancient history like 1964, when Walt Disney fired Tommy Kirk from the Disney Studios for being a gay man in a relationship with another gay actor.

The point is that yes, Disney of 2022 is a fairly liberal company operating in a very liberal Hollywood industry. But Disney hasn't always been that way. They weren't leading the charge on gay rights in the late 20th century. Instead, they were employing CM's to evict gay dancers from the park and had executives making lewd gay jokes at company events.

So let's not pretend Disney has always been some shining beacon of liberal ideals and gay rights. They are there to make a buck, and that all depends on where the money comes from. Right now, a lot of their money comes from the state of Florida, so they are inbetween a rock and a hard place. Between the democratically elected leaders of the state of Florida, and some employees and Twitter accounts that smell blood in the water. I don't envy them.

Oh yeah I completely agree they’ve never been that shining beacon. I just think the idea that a late apology and weak response from the CEO somehow makes them more “involved in the real world” than they were before is silly. Heck Iger was consistently more liberal.

 

[TP2000]

I think what you are missing is three things:

1) The K-3rd grade caveat is only a small portion of the 30+ page bill. This specifically cover all topics related to sex and sexuality. It singles out sexuality as something that is verboten from being discussed, which sounds fine, until you realize that little kids are often asked to draw their family, discuss their family tree or show family photos. All of this can lead to bullying amongst kids that have LGBT parents. Teachers have a duty to stop that bullying and, obviously, the best way to do that is to explain that some kids can have two moms or two dads or just one parent, etc. and that of those things are just fine with none lesser than another. This law forbids that discussion from even happening, or else the teacher can be sued into oblivion.

2) The rest of the bill is exceptionally broad and forces schools, of any age, to out kids to their parents. With Florida being Florida, many kids no doubt come from bigoted or homophobic homes and force outing them will no doubt bring upon truly awful levels of harm to a demographic that is already many times more likely to self harm and suffer from depression.

3) The bill also allows parents to sue if they feel the subject matter being taught is "inappropriate," regardless of the grade level. As to what inappropriate means, it's far too broad of a bill to say.

I understand all that.

There's a tiny minority of American children that are being raised by gay parents. I know two of them, and I intend to ask them about this topic when I see them next month. (They are actually younger friends of a friend, a successful doctor and his medical executive husband who my friend sold his Palm Springs practice to years ago, so it's not like I can just call them up and say "Hey, tell me about your kids development!". I'm going to need to wait until a cocktail party next month, in person, to discuss this unusual topic.)

But it seems to me that in preschool through 3rd grade, it's entirely appropriate for a teacher to not broach the subject of gay sexuality if little Billy draws his family of two dads and Sally asks him why he doesn't have a mom. The teacher can simply tell Sally that's a great question to ask your parents about, and move on with the drawing lesson. Or Billy can explain it his own damn self. (Go Billy!) But I don't think children aged 4 to 8 in a public school need to be purposely instructed about sexuality and how two dads can also have children like a mom and dad can. A good teacher deflects and moves on, and defers to the parents who are in charge.

This can't be the only topic that a 2nd grade teacher has had to avoid in the history of teaching. Anatomy, body functions, adult topics, politics, war, death, cancer, etc. all are likely to need deflection on occasion during a finger painting session.

Why would a teacher of 6 year old kids get down into the weeds about human sexuality and obscure family situations? And if a parent wants their 6 year old to be educated about those advanced topics, the parent can do that at home. Because they are... wait for it... the parent.

 

[WDWTrojan]

I understand all that.

There's a tiny minority of American children that are being raised by gay parents. I know two of them, and I intend to ask them about this topic when I see them next month. (They are actually younger friends of a friend, a successful dentist and his medical executive husband who my friend sold his Palm Springs dental practice to years ago, so it's not like I can just call them up and say "Hey, tell me about your kids development!". I'm going to need to wait until a cocktail party next month, in person, to discuss this unusual topic.)

But it seems to me that in preschool through 3rd grade, it's entirely appropriate for a teacher to not broach the subject of gay sexuality if little Billy draws his family of two dads and Sally asks him why he doesn't have a mom. The teacher can simply tell Sally that's a great question to ask your parents about, and move on with the drawing lesson. Or Billy can explain it his own damn self. (Go Billy!) But I don't think children aged 4 to 8 in a public school need to be purposely instructed about sexuality and how two dads can also have children like a mom and dad can. A good teacher deflects and moves on, and defers to the parents who are in charge.

This can't be the only topic that a 2nd grade teacher has had to avoid in the history of teaching. Anatomy, body functions, adult topics, politics, war, death, cancer, etc. all are likely to need deflection on occasion during a 1st grade finger painting session.

Why would a teacher with 6 year old kids get down into the weeds about human sexuality and obscure family situations? And if a parent wants their 6 year old to be educated about those advanced topics, the parent can do that at home. Because they are... wait for it... the parent.

LGBT Americans are Americans, despite being in the minority - all the more reason that they shouldn't be swept under the rug with a law that prevents even mentioning their very existence!

I don't understand why the teacher should be permitted to defend a student when the student has mixed race parents, but has to punt the issue when it's LGBT-related. Why is LGBT the one family topic that is somehow not worthy of discussion?

 

[ImperfectPixie]

I understand all that.

There's a tiny minority of American children that are being raised by gay parents. I know two of them, and I intend to ask them about this topic when I see them next month. (They are actually younger friends of a friend, a successful doctor and his medical executive husband who my friend sold his Palm Springs practice to years ago, so it's not like I can just call them up and say "Hey, tell me about your kids development!". I'm going to need to wait until a cocktail party next month, in person, to discuss this unusual topic.)

But it seems to me that in preschool through 3rd grade, it's entirely appropriate for a teacher to not broach the subject of gay sexuality if little Billy draws his family of two dads and Sally asks him why he doesn't have a mom. The teacher can simply tell Sally that's a great question to ask your parents about, and move on with the drawing lesson. Or Billy can explain it his own damn self. (Go Billy!) But I don't think children aged 4 to 8 in a public school need to be purposely instructed about sexuality and how two dads can also have children like a mom and dad can. A good teacher deflects and moves on, and defers to the parents who are in charge.

This can't be the only topic that a 2nd grade teacher has had to avoid in the history of teaching. Anatomy, body functions, adult topics, politics, war, death, cancer, etc. all are likely to need deflection on occasion during a finger painting session.

Why would a teacher with 6 year old kids get down into the weeds about human sexuality and obscure family situations? And if a parent wants their 6 year old to be educated about those advanced topics, the parent can do that at home. Because they are... wait for it... the parent.

Why are you pretending this hasn't been explained to you?

Did you watch the video posted above - because the woman very clearly asks the man responsible for the bill about the exact things you're mentioning - drug use, suicide, and other adult topics that aren't mentioned in the bill.

The only lessons that are taught in grades k-3 are about FAMILIES and the different forms they can take. That's it. It's about who loves and takes care of the children in question. They DON'T "get down in the weeds about human sexuality". That's the dog-whistle.

 

[TP2000]

LGBT Americans are Americans, despite being in the minority - all the more reason that they shouldn't be swept under the rug with a law that prevents even mentioning their very existence!

Oh, are they? I've only been a gay American since I was... born. Teach me, teacher! Tell me how it is.

I don't understand why the teacher should be permitted to defend a student when the student has mixed race parents, but has to punt the issue when it's LGBT-related. Why is LGBT the one family topic that is somehow not worthy of discussion?

Because you have to discuss sexuality to explain it. Or, a 2nd grade teacher could just say "families can come in all shapes and sizes!" and then move on with discussing the difference between upper case and lower case letters.

Sexuality seems an appropriate topic to begin broaching around 5th grade. Certainly by Junior High.

But pre-school? 1st grade? 2nd grade? That seems weird and... creepy. Just focus on the finger painting!

 

[TP2000]

Why are you pretending this hasn't been explained to you?

Did you watch the video posted above - because the woman very clearly asks the man responsible for the bill about the exact things you're mentioning - drug use, suicide, and other adult topics that aren't mentioned in the bill.

The only lessons that are taught in grades k-3 are about FAMILIES and the different forms they can take. That's it. It's about who loves and takes care of the children in question. They DON'T "get down in the weeds about human sexuality". That's the dog-whistle.

Then you've got nothing to worry about. If Florida curricula only discusses "families" in 2nd grade, there's no need to worry about explaining gay sexuality and gay marriage to the kids.

And again, if a parent really wants their 7 year old to know how wonderful gay marriage is, they can tell them all about it as much as they want. At home. Because they are parents and are in charge. Gay, gay, gay! We only talk about being gay at the dinner table in this house! (That would be an interesting dining room, wouldn't it?)

If Florida only teaches about "families" in their preschool to 3rd grade curriculum, then they may continue with that. The bill specifically calls out "sexual orientation" as being off limits through the 3rd grade.

3rd graders are 8 years old, remember.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Then you've got nothing to worry about. If Florida curricula only discusses "families" in 2nd grade, there's no need to worry about explaining gay sexuality and gay marriage to the kids.

If Florida only teaches about "families" in their preschool to 3rd grade curriculum, then they may continue with that. The bill specifically calls out "sexual orientation" as being off limits through the 3rd grade.

3rd graders are 7 to 8 years old, remember.

I know how old 3rd-graders are. I have a 5th-grader.

 

[maxairmike]

I understand all that.

There's a tiny minority of American children that are being raised by gay parents. I know two of them, and I intend to ask them about this topic when I see them next month. (They are actually younger friends of a friend, a successful dentist and his medical executive husband who my friend sold his Palm Springs dental practice to years ago, so it's not like I can just call them up and say "Hey, tell me about your kids development!". I'm going to need to wait until a cocktail party next month, in person, to discuss this unusual topic.)

But it seems to me that in preschool through 3rd grade, it's entirely appropriate for a teacher to no broach the subject of gay sexuality if little Billy draws his family of two dads and Sally asks him why he doesn't have a mom. The teacher can simply say that's a great question to ask you parents about, and move on with the drawing lesson. Children aged 4 to 8 in a public school don't need to be instructed about sexuality and how two dads can also have children like a mom and dad can. A good teacher deflects and moves on, and defers to the parents who are in charge.

This can't be the only topic that a 2nd grade teacher has had to avoid in the history of teaching. Anatomy, body functions, adult topics, politics, etc. all are likely to need deflection on occasion during a 1st grade finger painting session.

Why would a teacher with 6 year old kids get down into the weeds about human sexuality and obscure family situations? And if a parent wants their 6 year old to be educated about those advanced topics, the parent can do that at home. Because they are... wait for it... the parent.

You seem really hung up on this small part when it's been explained (pretty well, I think) several times, but I'll take a shot as well.

The bill is so broadly written with little specificity such that with the right/wrong judge and lawyer just inquiries like that could likely get teachers and/or schools into trouble (again, consider the audience, i.e. the parents who are convinced this is an issue and want to pray the gay away) when little Sally comes home and mentions what happened. In the minds of Sally's parents, just her seeing and knowing that one of her peers has LGBT parents is unacceptable, and being exposed to that at school is the teacher's/school's fault. And yes, if you're a reasonable, rational person this probably seems like a crazy, unlikely scenario. I wish I could say I was exaggerating when I say I've heard this kind of drivel from my own family and many others.

Of course, the flip-side (as one of the state reps/senators admitted) is that this can also cut the other way and LGBT parents could legitimately lodge a complaint about a heterosexual family structure being mentioned, due to how absurdly this bill was written. While this is what you're latching onto (and what the authors are content to focus everyone on due to the absurdity of it), I think the most insidious bit is about the forced outing of students. Again, consider the audience and the kinds of families the kids are likely to be outed to. This is dangerous for these kids, far more than any teacher quickly explaining to Sally that little Billy has two dads and they're just as much a family as her mom and dad, and will absolutely result in harm. When this inevitably gets challenged, they'll likely either rewrite the bit that you're so hung up on to make it targeted and worse, or just drop it and leave the really dangerous bit that's applicable to all ages because that's what the author(s) really care about and want.

That last bit is why Disney speaking out and trying to push back is so important, because it will absolutely cause harm to families and is very unfriendly to downright discriminatory to a group of people - many of them Cast Members - that have come to believe that Disney is a safe place for them and believes in their equality. Allowing this to go unchallenged flies right in the face of that.

 

[TP2000]

You seem really hung up on this small part when it's been explained (pretty well, I think) several times, but I'll take a shot as well.

The bill is so broadly written with little specificity such that with the right/wrong judge and lawyer just inquiries like that could likely get teachers and/or schools into trouble (again, consider the audience, i.e. the parents who are convinced this is an issue and want to pray the gay away) when little Sally comes home and mentions what happened.

Okay. I imagine the Florida courts can cross that bridge when they come to it. Just like if a teacher explains that Sally's grandmother died of cancer because she was a lifelong smoker. That's a lawsuit in the making.

That last bit is why Disney speaking out and trying to push back is so important, because it will absolutely cause harm to families and is very unfriendly to downright discriminatory to a group of people - many of them Cast Members - that have come to believe that Disney is a safe place for them and believes in their equality. Allowing this to go unchallenged flies right in the face of that.

You lost me at "safe place". Disney World has no responsibility to create a "safe place" beyond its property line. It's a theme park. It employs 75,000 people, in a state of 30 Million, who operate that theme park. That's all it does.

There's no responsibility of that employer to provide a "safe place" to anyone beyond company property. When that gay CM goes to a Publix in Kissimmee, they may get called out by some bigoted lady at the butcher's counter for holding their Lesbian wives hand. Or given a dirty look by a angry old man in the canned foods aisle for looking too gay with their husband. "Disney" can't control that. It's a thing gay folks have dealt with for hundreds of years. We survive.

If these folks who want 2nd graders to be taught about the beauties of gay marriage (and there are a few, but I would argue they aren't appropriate to mention to children until around the 6th grade) are so unhappy in Florida with a 2nd grade curricula that prohibits the mention of sexual orientation and gender identity, they can do one of three things;

1. Teach their children all about sexual orientation and gender identity in their own homes. Endlessly! GAY!
2. Move to a different state that has 2nd grade public school curricula regarding sexual orientation and gender identity that matches their personal values.
3. Enroll their children in a private Florida school that has a 2nd grade curricula regarding sexual orientation and gender identity that matches their personal values.

Since the cost of living is so low in Florida, it might be wise to not move out of state, but instead middle and working class parents should just have a family discussion at home once or twice a month about how great gay marriage and gender identity is for everyone, if that's what their personal values are.

And then let the 2nd grade teachers focus on upper case versus lower case letters.

 

[Suchomimus]

It’s been read frontwards and backwards about a million times this week.

It neither mandates nor limits.

The most dangerous precedents in law are those that set none.

Also you, when the bill gets to the part where Pre-K through 3rd grade would not be taught sexual orientation or gender identity in general:

 

[TP2000]

I just Googled. This bill passed the Florida Senate by a vote of 22 to 17.

The response by Floridians upset at this bill would seem to be to elect more Florida legislators who oppose this bill and would vote to rescind it. And/or to work to elect a new Governor who would veto this legislation, should it be passed by the democratically elected state legislature and sent to the Governor's desk for signing into law.

At least that's how the response should play out in a democracy, in a state of 30 million voters who democratically elected those legislators and Governor to represent them in the first place.