-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Bob Chapek's response to Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' bill
- Thread starter Disney Analyst
- Start date
- Status
Disney4Lyfe
Well-Known Member
“She thinks she’s being punished for standing up for LGBTQ equality.”
I’d be curious what the school is saying.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
It’s not a comparison of the bills. It’s an example of people having unreasonable interpretations of what is appropriate discussion. It doesn’t matter if 99.9% of all parents in a district think a conversation is appropriate, one single parent can now cause problems. That is the point. DeSantis wasn’t about to introduce primary school sexual education classes to the state curriculum. The required Open process for adopting, informing and providing exemptions regarding sexual education weren’t being ignored. The whole point is to give oversized power to a tiny few who do think telling kids not to make fun of Timmy and it’s okay to have to moms is instructing kids to celebrate gayness.
Last edited:
Dear Prudence
Well-Known Member
Pocahontas was a real person. That wasn't even her real name. She was between the ages of 9 and 12 when she was literally a victim of human trafficking. Please don't. Just don't.
Quinnmac000
Well-Known Member
I'm not saying it's a good thing. The same people who say k-3 shouldn't learn about these things are the same people who do let their children watch things at those ages which doesn't match the "values" they claim to be purporting.
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
The flip side is school districts ignoring parents concerns and supporting teachers like Casey Anderson, the Washington teacher who’s trans and has posted about “turning kids queer” and made sex references in class.
This is why laws like the Florida law end up being written, in conservative states you can be fired for something as minor as supporting a kids ability to draw a pride flag, in liberal states a parent has no recourse against a teacher despite the teachers completely inappropriate conduct.
Way too much gray area on both sides.
networkpro
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
Please do a bit of research before you start repeating that fictitious tale concerning Amonute of the Pamunkey tribe. It's a story that's lived far too long and it's just a story without a basis, in fact, just kept alive because it flattered the English settlers. Now this fictitious representation is being attacked as a strawman.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Now that this bill is on its way to the Governor's desk and its future will be decided by Florida voters this November, I'm curious how this whole "Break Time Walkout" thing is going for all the white collar cubicle farm folks?
Is this like a tree falling in the forest... If two dozen white collar workers don't answer email for 15 minutes while they're in line down at the lobby Starbucks, does anyone notice?
I just checked Twitter, and I can't find much about it.
The only thing I did find is the official Twitter account from the walk out organizers with the hashtags #whereischapek, #disneydobetter, etc. But that official Twitter account is only getting a handful to a couple dozen likes for each of their posts. That's not exactly burning up the Twittersphere, is it?
Like this Tweet they sent at 8:34am this morning, retweeting a blog mention, and by 5pm Eastern time hours after today's "walkout", it had garnered only 26 Likes. Feel free to add to their totals.
Is this like a tree falling in the forest... If two dozen white collar workers don't answer email for 15 minutes while they're in line down at the lobby Starbucks, does anyone notice?
I just checked Twitter, and I can't find much about it.
The only thing I did find is the official Twitter account from the walk out organizers with the hashtags #whereischapek, #disneydobetter, etc. But that official Twitter account is only getting a handful to a couple dozen likes for each of their posts. That's not exactly burning up the Twittersphere, is it?
Like this Tweet they sent at 8:34am this morning, retweeting a blog mention, and by 5pm Eastern time hours after today's "walkout", it had garnered only 26 Likes. Feel free to add to their totals.
Last edited:
John park hopper
Well-Known Member
You need to check your facts
marymarypoppins
Active Member
Where is the moderator to put this back on track? Is all of this extra info that just to deter from the fact that the Florida “don’t say gay” bill really doesn’t say “don’t say gay”??
Last edited:
Some I know will probably go to the Typhoon Lagoon RipTide event during Gay Days in June , splurging purchasing on the VIP ticket which includes open bar during the event 8pm-2am.
BuddyThomas
Well-Known Member
I’ve done that VIP open bar thing but only once. Unless it has changed, the VIP area is in some dark out of the way corner and it wasn’t a very fun crowd. On the other hand, I got my money’s worth because they had no idea how many drinks I could throw back, LOL.
BuddyThomas
Well-Known Member
I didn’t write this, but can I just say…..Mike Drop!
morphi
Member
Been away all day. I've mostly said what I have to say. I've spoken a lot about the priority of the text of any bill/law.
Others contend that this particular bill is discriminatory and was crafted in such a way as to effectually discriminate against the LGBTQ community in some way (e.g., chilling effect created by activist lawsuits).
The text of the bill addresses that concern.
Consider one hypothetical scenario: A gay man named Harold is the democratic nominee for president. The [third grade or below] teacher is giving instruction on how elections work and during the instruction she mentions that the nominee is married to a person named Leonard. (No statements affirming or denigrating same-sex marriages was made.) Some opponents of this bill fear that a supporter of this bill will sue because the teacher instructed about "sexual orientation" (by simply acknowledging that same-sex marriage exists) which this law bans.
If successful (and I am certainly not saying that it would or should succeed under this law), they contend that there would be a chilling effect against teachers even mentioning the reality of same-sex marriage. This would be a discriminatory effect.
Could a suit like this be brought? Certainly. But that is not the end of the story.
BOTH sides have activist constituencies who know how to use the legal system to advance their interests. If this suit succeeded, then another person would bring a suit if a teacher mentioned that the other person running for president (Anthony) was married to Susan. If the first case succeeded then this case should succeed because the TEXT of the law is NEUTRAL regarding "sexual orientation". So if merely mentioning the names of two spouses is "instructing about sexual orientation" then no names of spouses (whether same-sex or opposite-sex) could be mentioned while instructing. This is unworkable.
And because it is unworkable, the law would not be adjudicated in this way-- regulatory agencies (or other bodies) given the responsibility to issue regulations providing details for scope and application (as happens with most legislation) would craft the regulations in a proper way before the law goes into effect, or the law would be modified (by regulators, legislators, or judges in setting down judicial tests, application boundaries, etc.) or scrapped (by the legislature or courts).
Other scenarios that more directly touch on sexual orientation (or gender identity) can be described. But the point is, if one side brings a suit and that suit succeeds, the same type of suit can be brought by the other side--they are on equal footing because the TEXT of the bill/law is neutral.
One might say that instruction would never need to explicitly specify "opposite-sex marriages" because that is more common and goes unsaid. (And that this is the crux of HOW the bill/law is discriminatory.) But that is not true. Just using the term husband and wife would constitute explicit instruction of opposite-sex marriages. Even if not, it would not take long for a teacher who is against this bill to purposefully and explicitly state something about opposite-sex marriage and conveniently have a parent who is also against this bill come to know what he said and then bring a lawsuit that instruction was given regarding "sexual orientation."
The neutral text and the ability for BOTH sides to sue guards against discriminatory effects.
The text is primary.
Others contend that this particular bill is discriminatory and was crafted in such a way as to effectually discriminate against the LGBTQ community in some way (e.g., chilling effect created by activist lawsuits).
The text of the bill addresses that concern.
Consider one hypothetical scenario: A gay man named Harold is the democratic nominee for president. The [third grade or below] teacher is giving instruction on how elections work and during the instruction she mentions that the nominee is married to a person named Leonard. (No statements affirming or denigrating same-sex marriages was made.) Some opponents of this bill fear that a supporter of this bill will sue because the teacher instructed about "sexual orientation" (by simply acknowledging that same-sex marriage exists) which this law bans.
If successful (and I am certainly not saying that it would or should succeed under this law), they contend that there would be a chilling effect against teachers even mentioning the reality of same-sex marriage. This would be a discriminatory effect.
Could a suit like this be brought? Certainly. But that is not the end of the story.
BOTH sides have activist constituencies who know how to use the legal system to advance their interests. If this suit succeeded, then another person would bring a suit if a teacher mentioned that the other person running for president (Anthony) was married to Susan. If the first case succeeded then this case should succeed because the TEXT of the law is NEUTRAL regarding "sexual orientation". So if merely mentioning the names of two spouses is "instructing about sexual orientation" then no names of spouses (whether same-sex or opposite-sex) could be mentioned while instructing. This is unworkable.
And because it is unworkable, the law would not be adjudicated in this way-- regulatory agencies (or other bodies) given the responsibility to issue regulations providing details for scope and application (as happens with most legislation) would craft the regulations in a proper way before the law goes into effect, or the law would be modified (by regulators, legislators, or judges in setting down judicial tests, application boundaries, etc.) or scrapped (by the legislature or courts).
Other scenarios that more directly touch on sexual orientation (or gender identity) can be described. But the point is, if one side brings a suit and that suit succeeds, the same type of suit can be brought by the other side--they are on equal footing because the TEXT of the bill/law is neutral.
One might say that instruction would never need to explicitly specify "opposite-sex marriages" because that is more common and goes unsaid. (And that this is the crux of HOW the bill/law is discriminatory.) But that is not true. Just using the term husband and wife would constitute explicit instruction of opposite-sex marriages. Even if not, it would not take long for a teacher who is against this bill to purposefully and explicitly state something about opposite-sex marriage and conveniently have a parent who is also against this bill come to know what he said and then bring a lawsuit that instruction was given regarding "sexual orientation."
The neutral text and the ability for BOTH sides to sue guards against discriminatory effects.
The text is primary.
BuddyThomas
Well-Known Member
But why should anybody have to have their lives disrupted by bringing or battling lawsuits because of this hateful and moronic bill?? You make it sound like it is so easy, like having a drink of water. That is not the case. It is extraordinarily expensive and time consuming and if one of these cases ever makes it to the Supreme Court with its conservative and partisan majority, well, we know what happens then.
ParkPeeker
Well-Known Member
I am not blaming anybody for having heterosexuality ingrained in them at a very young age, nor do I think it’s wrong, you’re putting words in my mouth. I’m merely stating the facts, juxtaposing them to show the reality. Why is it that when I show the reality of how much more unseen/unaccepted lgbtq identities are, it automatically becomes an attack, as if I’m against straight cis identities and families?
Also sure lgbtq is more accepted now more than ever. But it’s not nearly as accepted or seen by especially children than straight cis, still. The only reason you were shown a “generous number” is because you explicitly searched on google “GAY CARTOON.” As if that very direct search reflects how much exposure kids have with it today. There’s this weird thing that happens that just because people see a minor gay character in one cartoon, or a very implicit very short lgbt scene, that they automatically think we’re closing the gap fast. In reality children’s exposure and acceptance of lgbtq identities is not nearly as much, not even close, to the 100% exposure and 100%acceptance of straight cis identities. I’m not attacking straight cis families, just pointing the reality out.
Wait wait wait. Aside from any legal expenses and time spent to fix this, let’s focus on your claim that the bill is equal as it is written now.
So your argument on why this bill is not discriminatory is that it can also be used against the straight cis community in that:
Gays can and will use this bill to discriminate against Straights eventually, because they don’t like the bill? I don’t even think that counts as discrimination, that’s straight up revenge.
Sorry but gay revenge isn’t a valid explanation as to why this bill reads equal.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
You continually assume good faith where none exists. You claim the bill is intended to apply to both same-sex and heterosexual couples equally - so why was a proposed amendment that would have made that explicit rejected? Because one was proposed. And rejected.
You also miss the point of the lawsuits. The flood of lawsuits set to be unleashed against school districts are not designed to win, they are designed to place an enormous burden on the finances and resources of school districts that don’t have much of either. In fact, school districts are so ill-equipped to meet this threat that they will frantically self-censor in an attempt to escape persecution - the chilling effect. Again, this is a new, intentional technique being used by GOP legislators for the very conservative goal of sowing the fear of arbitrary lawsuits and escaping judicial review.
The GOP has a very large, unified special interest network entirely focused on attacking public education. It is a relatively new tactic in which they focus there efforts against school boards and administrators, groups that are much easier to intimidate and bully then congressmen or judges. We’ve seen it with CRT, with masks, and here with gender and sexuality issues. This bill seeks to give these groups even greater ability to interfere with public education. While the other side has many, many special interest groups, they are in no way as focused on schools.
Your insistence on removing the bill from extra-textual context is absurd. NO work can be coherently interpreted separate from its cultural context. And in this thread, over and over, we’ve seen people without a legal background - without legal context - misinterpret the supposedly simple text. Even you hand-wave towards some sort of unspecified regulatory bodies that will make sense of the vague bill “before” it goes into effect. No explanation for how that would happen. You are essentially not only rejecting the actual context of the bill but manufacturing entirely fictional context in order to make yourself feel better about it.
Also, your faith in the apolitical, even-handed nature of every court is… questionable.
morphi
Member
I am not positing "gay revenge". It would simply be a tactic to show the absurdity of a particular application of the law--and a means to achieve their interest.
ParkPeeker
Well-Known Member
Well there you go. Focusing on the “absurd way” the bill can be used, which you admit can happen, don’t you see how it’s discriminatory? One side uses it to discriminate. The other side uses it to show how absurd it is.
ParkPeeker
Well-Known Member
Actually let me rephrase this. In your own scenario: Lgbtq is actually faced with discrimination by whoever uses it against them, straight/cis is faced with being an example of the law’s absurdity by whoever uses it against them.
- Status