News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

mightynine

Well-Known Member
Care to provide a link to that? Because I think you may be falling prey to believing everything you see on social media.

Because AFAIK, there was a meme passed around about a poll someone did where 50%+ percent of those who chose to respond said they were for banning them, but it's not something that actually happened.
Oh, that poll happened:

 

LAKid53

Official Member of the Girly Girl Fan Club
Premium Member
What? They are not amending a law, they are passing a new one. Here it is in it's entirety. Seriously people these things are not hard to look up and read.


No, they are amending existing statute.

"Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: Section 1. Section 189.0311, Florida Statutes, is AMENDED to read..."
 

mkt

Disney's Favorite Scumbag™
Premium Member
The false narrative that it has anything to do with the word gay, or frankly gay people at all. It has literally nothing to do with that. It has to do with not talking about sex with 5-9 year olds.

If you support talking about sex with young kids then you are a sick freak.
Cool.

It's not that simple. Have you read the law? I have.
I sat down and read it with my wife, the mother of our child, who also happens to be an excellent attorney and who tutors law students in conlaw. I've also read it with her dad, who was previously an elected official who has drafted legislation that has been approved, and is also an attorney in his own right; and with my father figure (uncle who raised me after my dad passed), who is also an attorney and former law school professor.

The law is overly vague, to the point of being unconstitutional and unenforceable. For example, an 18-year old (legal adult) high school senior could sue a teacher under that law, if the teacher discusses nonsexual aspects of heterosexual relationship, like going out on a date to the movies.

Beyond that, the enforcement mechanism is flawed, because it is entirely subjective, and based on the standards of a specific individual.

Now, do I think young kids need to be spoken to about sex? Not at all.

But do I think this law is completely unconstitutional: yes I do.

If you support unconstitutional laws, you are completely un-American.
 
Last edited:

ImperfectPixie

Well-Known Member
Baseless? They are lying about the bill. What reason would someone have to lie about the bill other than being a fan of talking about sex with 5-9 year olds?

Can you tell me why?
HB1557 does NOT ban talking about sex with 5-9 year old children in schools.

It bans any discussion regarding - very specifically - "sexual orientation and gender identity". These are qualities human beings possess, not activities that humans participate in.
 

the_rich

Well-Known Member
Care to provide a link to that? Because I think you may be falling prey to believing everything you see on social media.

Because AFAIK, there was a meme passed around about a poll someone did where 50%+ percent of those who chose to respond said they were for banning them, but it's not something that actually happened.
Just looked. I believe you are right. People were for banning them because they were ignorant of what they actually are.
 

Chip Chipperson

Well-Known Member
They would care if you lived in a super secret town that self-funded its own would-be county services.

Incorrect. The County wants its money. I guess you didn't read the article I posted in an earlier response to you that showed Disney winning a tax appeal because the County assessed some of their property at too high a level. That doesn't sound like the County is artificially deflating what Disney pays them in property taxes, does it? Quite the opposite. If the County had their way, Disney would be paying more, but property valuations have to follow a consistent formula so WDW property can't be unfairly assessed just because TWDC can afford it
 

LAKid53

Official Member of the Girly Girl Fan Club
Premium Member

GimpYancIent

Well-Known Member
Soooooo let me get this straight. The RCID remains until 2023 dependent on what happens between now and Monday in the House for the rest of the story. All the rest is speculation.
 

castlecake2.0

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Because you’re derailing the conversation about the RCID and it’s possible dissolution.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mkt

Disney's Favorite Scumbag™
Premium Member
Soooooo let me get this straight. The RCID remains until 2023 dependent on what happens between now and Monday in the House for the rest of the story. All the rest is speculation.
There's going to be so many lawsuits stemming from this legislation... and not actually to fight it, but just to get some clarity.

Does RCID exist or not? Can residents refuse to dissolve it? Are we really in the worst timeline?
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom