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

[lazyboy97o]

This would be news. Yet you refuse to share it. Odd.

Why don’t you give us your personal details first.

 

[Casper Gutman]

[Second time writing this reply. The original never posted.]

Same types of questions can be posed for any piece of law. Consider the First Amendment: Can a state, as opposed to the federal government, make a law respecting an establishment of religion? Can a government opt to not charge a church property taxes? Can a law be imposed if it has a disparate impact on religion? Is racist speech protected? Is speech that furthers a stereotype protected? Does a person's right to free speech include the right to lie about someone else? Does writing on a cake constitute speech? Does the amendment only apply to political speech? Are political contributions speech? Do corporations have the right to adopt policies based on religious principles? What defines protected journalism as opposed to other similar initiatives? etc.

My point is NOT that answers to these questions have not eventually been crafted by our country. My point is that the people did not refrain from passing the first amendment until all definitions, clarifications, limitations, and applications were settled. If the establishment of law required us to wait for such things, there would be no law.

That said, this bill is by no means reckless or arbitrary.


It could be repealed or modified by the legislature. It could be over-turned in the courts or modified by the courts (by decisions under the law that define and constraint its meaning, purview, and application).

The impetus for these actions could be chaos created by BOTH sides filing suits under the law regarding who holds whose hands in a cartoon. This would quickly become unworkable until the courts defined the concepts, boundaries, and applicability of the law (as they have done over time with, say, the first amendment).


Generally, I do not buy into conspiracy theories. But just for the sake of the discussion, it would not alter my confidence in understanding the TEXT of the bill knowing that it is the text which is controlling. [edit]

To reply to just a couple points here: In the time it takes for the bill to be "scrapped," how much will school districts have to pay in legal defense? How much of a chilling effect will the bill have on teachers? Because the Supreme Court overturning the bill might very well take years and years, and the "private lawsuits as enforcement mechanism" element, a technique recently innovated by and increasingly popular among GOP state legislators, will make this even more convoluted - and because the bill is intended to cause chaos by the legislators who voted for it, it is absurd to think those same legislators would repeal it when it causes chaos.

It surprises me a great deal that you consider cooperation between special interest groups and politicians a "conspiracy theory." You seem well versed on history, so your stance here confuses me.

It seems like you don't care about the intention behind the law, you don't care about the impact of the law, you don't care about how legal experts interpret the law, you only care about the fact that you, personally, can read it and interpret it in a way you consider reasonable. Which is one of the reasons it is written as it is.

 

[Casper Gutman]

“Each school district shall adopt procedures for a parent to notify the principal, or his or her designee, regarding concerns under this paragraph at his or her student's school and the process for resolving those concerns within 7 calendar days after notification by the parent.
a. At a minimum, the procedures must require that within 30 days after notification by the parent that the concern remains unresolved, the school district must either resolve the concern or provide a statement of the reasons for not resolving the concern.”

That’s the words.

It’s all right there guys.

What does the next section say? Quote it.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

To reply to just a couple points here: In the time it takes for the bill to be "scrapped," how much will school districts have to pay in legal defense? How much of a chilling effect will the bill have on teachers? Because the Supreme Court overturning the bill might very well take years and years, and the "private lawsuits as enforcement mechanism" element, a technique recently innovated by and increasingly popular among GOP state legislators, will make this even more convoluted - and because the bill is intended to cause chaos by the legislators who voted for it, it is absurd to think those same legislators would repeal it when it causes chaos.

It surprises me a great deal that you consider cooperation between special interest groups and politicians a "conspiracy theory." You seem well versed on history, so your stance here confuses me.

It seems like you don't care about the intention behind the law, you don't care about the impact of the law, you don't care about how legal experts interpret the law, you only care about the fact that you, personally, can read it and interpret it in a way you consider reasonable. Which is one of the reasons it is written as it is.

Because of course everyone interprets everything the same way. And lawyers and judges have never interpreted things in the opposite way that most people think they would.

 

[morphi]

It seems like you don't care about the intention behind the law, you don't care about the impact of the law, you don't care about how legal experts interpret the law, you only care about the fact that you, personally, can read it and interpret it in a way you consider reasonable. Which is one of the reasons it is written as it is.

Not at all. I am not impressed with my ability to comprehend simple, straight-forward english. It's a pretty basic task.

I simply believe that the text of a law is THE MOST IMPORTANT thing about it. It is the most important means of understanding what it means, what it intends, and how it will/should be applied.

So I focus on the text more than other aspects of the legislative process. Given the priority of the text, I find it amazing that so many people give it such short shrift.

That some judges are not controlled by the text and the original intent as recorded in the text, is a shame. People from some political perspectives, though, rely on and celebrate such [lawless] rulings.

Relying on the text is one important way to ensure that (1) we are a country of laws, and not of men, and (2) the legitimacy of Law is passed from one generation to the next.

 

[morphi]

Because of course everyone interprets everything the same way. And lawyers and judges have never interpreted things in the opposite way that most people think they would.

This reality cuts both ways on both sides of the argument. Laws must still be passed despite not knowing what every single judge in the system will do with it.

 

[morphi]

It surprises me a great deal that you consider cooperation between special interest groups and politicians a "conspiracy theory." You seem well versed on history, so your stance here confuses me.

While I reject most (if not all) claims of a wide-ranging conspiracy, the point is that the (supposed) conspiracy would only stand a chance if people (including judges) reject the meaning of the text. The text controls.

Some solace: It seems reasonable to think that you would hold that conservative judges would be the most likely to play along with this (supposed) conspiracy. But conservative judges are more likely (relatively speaking) to be the types of judges who accept being controlled by the text.

 

[Casper Gutman]

While I reject most (if not all) claims of a wide-ranging conspiracy, the point is that the (supposed) conspiracy would only stand a chance if people (including judges) reject the meaning of the text. The text controls.

Some solace: It seems reasonable to think that you would hold that conservative judges would be the most likely to play along with this (supposed) conspiracy. But conservative judges are more likely (relatively speaking) to be the types of judges who accept being controlled by the text.

Pretending that cooperation between special interests and politicians is a “wide-ranging conspiracy” is incredibly disingenuous.

You are aware, I assume, that (as I noted above) this bill hinges on a new “individual lawsuits as enforcement” mechanism that is spreading like wildfire among GOP state lawmakers specifically because it makes judicial review much more difficult and sidesteps constitutional restraints? That is, by the way, exactly the sort of extra textual context that is vital in understanding this bill.

Oh, and please don’t quote enlightenment ideals to me as you support one of these new breed of bills intended to turn every citizen into a vigilante spying on their neighbor. It’s insulting.

I will keep asking - what legal expert, engaging directly with the text, supports your interpretation of this bill? I would like to read them.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Sometimes a laughing face is the kindest response !

Not here. It’s against the rules here. People laugh at other people’s posts sarcastically and it’s rude.

 

[Disney Analyst]

What Florida's 'Don’t Say Gay' bill actually says

Legal experts dissect whether the bill would prevent the “instruction” or “discussion” of sexual orientation and gender identity and which grade levels would be affected.

www.nbcnews.com

For starters, criticism that the “Don’t Say Gay” bill does not in fact say “gay” anywhere in its text is true. The bill, which passed Florida’s Senate last week and the state’s House of Representatives in February, does, however, contain the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” each twice.

But legal experts say that whether the bill prohibits the word “gay” itself is a “distraction.”

“In the same way that critical race theory isn’t being taught in schools, that hasn’t stopped people like the governor of Florida from deploying the term ‘critical race theory’ in efforts to engage in certain kinds of political maneuverings,” said Charlton Copeland, a professor at the University of Miami School of Law who writes about sexual orientation and gender identity. “The ‘Don’t Say Gay’ moniker is a moniker about a certain political framing of this situation.”

Beyond branding, a core argument over the bill centers around whether it would prohibit the “instruction” or “discussion” of sexual orientation.

The bill’s sponsors have emphatically stated that the bill would not prohibit students from talking about their LGBTQ families or bar classroom discussions about LGBTQ history, including events like the 2016 deadly attack on the Pulse nightclub, a gay club in Orlando. Instead, they argue that the bill would bar the “instruction” of sexual orientation or gender identity.

But the text says both.
In its preamble, the bill’s authors write that their aim is to prohibit “classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity.” But later, the actual bill states that “classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur.”

“I could see why people are confused by that,” said Clay Calvert, a professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law who specializes in freedom of speech.

“I have no idea why that’s still left up there, but that’s not part of the binding legislation that DeSantis would sign,” Calvert added, referring to the word “discussion” in the bill’s preamble.


“Basically, all of that language is just telling us what the bill is about,” Calvert said, contending that the text in the bill’s preamble would have no real-life consequences.

Copeland disagreed.

“One of the things I would have told my students in the fall, when I taught them statutory interpretation, and one of the things that courts certainly do, is to look at the preamble to assess, ‘Well, what’s the scope of that term called ‘instruction?’” Copeland said. “And the preamble seems to have a conception of what is prohibited that is much broader when we might think of a cramped conception of ‘instruction.’”

He added, “A good lawyer in a local school district, a good lawyer in the state department of education is going to do exactly that.”

Regardless, it remains unclear what the “instruction” of sexual orientation or gender identity entails. A definition of that type of lesson is not in the bill’s text.


Without a clearer description, Calvert said, “teachers may legitimately fear being sued” for a wide variety of classroom instruction, including lessons concerning same-sex marriage or the history of the AIDS epidemic.

“If a student raises a question that is not part of the lesson plan or the instructional plan of a teacher, but that question ties to sexual orientation or gender identity, then what may the teacher say at that point?” Calvert said.
Calvert raised the prospect of answering a student’s question about how same-sex couples marry each other.

“Am I teaching about what the Constitution says in that case, or am I teaching about sexual orientation?” he asked.

The bill’s sponsors did not directly answer repeated queries to provide examples of “instruction” of sexual orientation or gender identity during House and Senate debate. When asked by a Democratic lawmaker to explain what the instruction of sexual orientation or gender identity would look like, Republican state Rep. Joe Harding, one of the bill’s sponsors, read the definition of the word “instruction” from what appeared to be a dictionary.

“Vagueness is deployed for certain purposes. People aren’t vague just because they’re ignorant; they’re not vague because they’re sloppy; they’re not vague because they’re lazy,” Copeland said. “Sometimes they’re intentionally vague to move the site of where the political fight is going to take place.”

Which age groups the bill would apply to has also sparked fierce debate in recent weeks.

The text states that teachings on sexual orientation or gender identity would be banned “in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”

Critics have said the language of this provision could open districts and educators to lawsuits from parents who believe any conversation about LGBTQ people or issues to be inappropriate, regardless of their child’s age.

Legal experts agree, but dispute that a parent’s interpretation of what is or isn’t “age appropriate” would hold up in court.

Nonetheless, Calvert said, “it remains to be seen what ‘age appropriate’ or ‘developmentally appropriate’ means,” according to the state.

A clause on the final page of the bill would require the Florida Department of Education to update state standards “in accordance with the requirements of this act” by June 30, 2023.

“The Department of Education has some leeway here to update and review its own standards about what is age appropriate, and then those will influence how this bill is actually implemented,” Calvert said. “In other words, it could stretch higher than third grade.”

Copeland added that the mere threat of lawsuits would complete the bill’s “work.”

“This kind of ever-present possibility of having to defend oneself, of a school district having to spend resources, will have its own chilling effects,” he said.

 

[BuddyThomas]

Sometimes a laughing face is the kindest response !

Yeah, but as you know, the moderators of this site have made it clear they do not want laughing emojis used as "mocking". It's been made perfectly clear. You can always start your own site. You might want to call it The Laughing Place, and then you can mock whomever you want without repercussion.

 

[TP2000]

Luckily this can’t happen. As the bill is quite clear. Lawsuits are based on a schools lack of response to parent requests. Phew!

Oh! You actually read the entire bill and understand how it works legally and functionally!

 

[ImperfectPixie]

What Florida's 'Don’t Say Gay' bill actually says

Legal experts dissect whether the bill would prevent the “instruction” or “discussion” of sexual orientation and gender identity and which grade levels would be affected.

www.nbcnews.com

Jeez...all of that sounds very similar to all the things a few of us have been saying all along...and from law experts, no less.

 

[Disney Analyst]

Jeez...all of that sounds very similar to all the things a few of us have been saying all along...and from law experts, no less.

Yep. Lots to discuss.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Oh! You actually read the entire bill and understand how it works legally and functionally!

No, he doesn’t. He intentionally posted an incomplete section in order to mislead. If the parent is not satisfied by the response - in other words, if they don’t do what the parent demands - they can sue.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Sometimes a laughing face is the kindest response !

It usually just means someone is incapable of having an adult conversation when all they can do is mock others.

It says more about the person using it than whatever it is in response to.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Disney workers plan walkout to protest 'Don't Say Gay' bill

Disney workers are planning walkouts during their breaks every day this week to protest CEO Bob Chapek’s slow response in publicly criticizing Florida’s so-called Don’t Say Gay legislation.

apnews.com

This is the only thing that’s remotely interesting about this bill now, it’s been passed, it’s over, only the courts can change that now so if/when the courts take a look at it it may become interesting again.

Now we wait for the 22nd to see if anything actually happens, setting up a walkout is one thing, getting people to actually walk out and risk their jobs is another. I have no doubt they’ll get some but I’ll be shocked if it’s enough to do anything other than be a photo op for the press.

 

[TP2000]

No, he doesn’t. He intentionally posted an incomplete section in order to mislead. If the parent is not satisfied by the response - in other words, if they don’t do what the parent demands - they can sue.

Here are the steps outlined in the bill that a parent and school board must both take and complete before a parent can sue a school district for non-compliance with this law.

1. Karen notifies the school principal that they have a concern regarding this law (a teacher including sexual orientation in curriculum for 2nd graders, for example). The principal has 7 days to respond to the parent and explain and/or correct the concern.
2. Karen isn't happy with the principal's resolution, and notifies the School District that the law is being violated. The School District has 30 days to investigate, respond and explain and/or correct the concern.
3. Karen isn't happy with the School District's resolution, and notifies the Florida Commisioner of Education, who then appoints a special magistrate who must have at least 5 years of experience in administrative law. The special magistrate conducts an investigation of the concern with the school district, and must render a recommended resolution to the State Board of Education within 30 days.
4. The State Board of Education then has 30 days to approve or reject the recommended resolution by the special magistrate and notify Karen of their decision. The costs of this process must be born by the school district, and not Karen.
5. If at that point Karen still thinks the principal, the school district, and the state Board of Education are all still allowing this law to be violated, Karen can then sue her local school.

It's all found on pages 5 and 6 of the bill. It seems to be a fairly resonable process, wherein the school itself and the local school district have a reasonable way of responding to and/or addressing the concerns of local parents. Even if the parent is a Karen who keeps asking to talk to a different manager.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF

 

[TP2000]

This is the only thing that’s remotely interesting about this bill now, it’s been passed, it’s over, only the courts can change that now so if/when the courts take a look at it it may become interesting again.

Now we wait for the 22nd to see if anything actually happens, setting up a walkout is one thing, getting people to actually walk out and risk their jobs is another. I have no doubt they’ll get some but I’ll be shocked if it’s enough to do anything other than be a photo op for the press.

True. But the organizers of the Tuesday walk out are all pampered white collar folks, and they've aimed their communication at the white collar ranks who will lose nothing by doing this. And since it's 8am to 6pm, you technically wouldn't be "walking out", you just wouldn't be showing up to work that day. You'd need to use a personal day or a vacation day to cover your absence in the HR tracking system. Like any other Tuesday when you call in sick, or have a flat tire, or have rented a cozy Airbnb for your wife's birthday.

If they convince a $15 an hour theme park CM to be absent from their Tuesday shift at Tomorrowland Terrace, that CM will lose out on 8 hours of pay for the week. And/or they will need to backfill with their earned vacation or sick pay hours.

It all just seems so meaningless and self-serving, and all aimed at a white collar cubicle farm demographic that can easily call in sick for the day and not lose any pay or any workplace status. Just like they can easily log off their email from 3:00 to 3:15 during their regular afternoon coffee break.

What a bunch of rebels! If only Martin Luther King and the Freedom Riders could have had the backbone to log out of email during their 15 minute coffee break instead of facing water cannons! If only the Suffragettes had the moral calling to use an earned Comp Day instead of being sent to a dank Edwardian jail for six months and force fed pablum with a feeding tube!

whereischapek.com

This domain may be for sale!

www.whereischapek.com

 

[Willmark]

35 pages of saying the same thing

You’re new here right? /s