re: Disney CEO Vows More Gay Content For Children

" Imagining downvoting a post that suggests you spend money on people that don't hate you"

fact is truth make wishywashy people uncomfortable
they actually have to form an opinion

easier to just downvote, and not think

Imagine thinking Disney hates you because they won’t exclude the people you don’t like.

I thought it was just LGBTQ. I see they’ve added an I and A to the end. How many more letters will these idiots add?

Let them walk out.

It will be easier to identify the groomers.

quote:

---

No. Disney has long been on the gay train. My parents took my brother's kids there around 15 years ago and they, unbeknownst to them, booked their trip at the same time as gay pride week...or whatever they call it. My parents said that there were gay pride parades going right down Main Street where there were dudes, wearing chaps and bondage apparel, simulating sex acts on the floats

---

Pride week has certainly been a thing, however, it was self contained and well known. My statement was more as to their media and the parks (outside if that week) were not pushing "the message" like they are now.

quote:

---

ETA: Imagining downvoting a post

---

Fatkid and VoxDawg can’t live without Marvel and Star Wars. They don’t care how many kids have to be groomed

quote:

---

Schools are more likely to suppress all LGBT discussion than risk a parent suing them and taking it to trial.

---

You say that like it's a bad thing. What sort of sexual discussions would you like to see take place in a 3rd grade classroom?

quote:

---

Therefore, nothing LGBTQ is discriminated against.

---

From the text (the literally first page)

quote:

---

prohibiting a school district from
22 encouraging classroom discussion about sexual
23 orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels
24 or in a specified manner;

---

From the meat of the bill:

quote:

---

3. A school district may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in
77 primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate
78 or developmentally appropriate for students.

---

That is literally the language. It is followed, both times by talking about how parents can sue for damages.

Any reasonable person can see that that is intentionally vague language. The sponsor of the bill rejecting a strengthening of that language to cover sexual explicit material (claiming that would weaken the bill too much to be useful) shows exactly why the language is vague in the first place.

quote:

---

Straw man. In no way would this hold up in court as a violation of the law

---

Then why legislate it in the first place lol? I think you are confusing the terms "hypothetical situation" and "strawman". Under the language of the bill, that situation could very well cause a parent to sue.

quote:

---

At the end of the day this is to keep inappropriate content out of schools. Content. I repeat again, content. There is inappropriate content from straight people that should not be allowed in schools.

---

This isn't about sexually charged content, that is a lie. The bill doesn't say it at all. Again:

quote:

---

A school district may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity

---

It doesn't say "sexually charged" or "explicit", nothing. Simply says "sexual orientation or gender identity".

quote:

---

What protection does this bill remove? What right did gays et. al have before this bill that they no longer have?

---

The right to not be sued for being gay. Obviously, the law will be challenged and for violating federal anti-discrimination codes but until that happens, this is very much a reality. There is no way a gay teacher can read this language and not consider themselves at risk of being sued simply over an acknowledgment of their sexual orientation.

quote:

---

That's the point. There have been numerous examples, specifically provided on this board that show the sexualization of education materials in public schools these days. What you stated above is the appropriate answer. Unfortunately, we are seeing much more unneeded explanation at younger ages than need be. This law will provide the framework to keep it in check.

---

"Numerous examples" on the Poli Board lmao. Because random, unvetted posts about hyper-partisan "news" articles on a college football forum meet such a high bar of legitimacy. If that was the issue, the bill would not mention sexual orientation, and would instead talk about explicit, sexually charged content.

quote:

---

Back to straw man bullshite

---

Me pointing out that there are fantastic, gay teachers out there that will be pushed out of the field by this kind of legislation is not a strawman. I don't know what you were going for there, but maybe you should refresh your knowledge of fallacies.

High-tech grooming. Sick fricks.