[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Maybe. But they are almost guaranteed to be among the overwhelming majority of parents who don't want sexual orientation taught in school to their 5 year old.
There's a big difference between objecting to or discriminating against a specific sexual orientation (or race, or religion) and objecting to that sexual orientation being taught to 5 year olds.

And there is a big difference between indoctrination or "sexual orientation taught in school to their 5 year old" and accepting that Johnny has two dad's and that's okay.

Notice that the LAW (as you put it) doesn't mention teaching at all. (wouldn't it be nice if people actually read what they are arguing about?) As pointed out, it also doesn't mention "gay" at all either. While many of those concerned parents are cheering now that their precious little darlings won't have to hear about "those people" they may not be so happy later if the language (or lack of) in their prized LAW is used against them.

We'll see what happens. If I was good at predicting the future my portfolio would include my recent lottery winnings.

[jimjamuser]

It's like there MUST be a new WEEKLY enemy to hate.......usually a minority, never a wasp. The dark web churns out new HATE on a regular basis - even baby-eating liberals. No problems are solved, like improved roads and bridges in the US. Just crazy emotions get stirred up. The idea is to make truth non-existent and increase opportunities for chaos.

[Two Bills]

Originally Posted by bgamble3

Disney has revealed itself as groomers to small children. That info is on You Tube if you care to look it up. They do not deserve to remain tax free which is what they have enjoyed from the taxpayers when they were thought to be an entertainment company.
The elites of Disney were on digital media boasting about how they were going to increase their grooming of children to accept as normal, abnormal sexual activity.
The governor is doing his job and should be commended and supported for having the courage to go after this corporations attack against families and especially small children.

Walt Disney World paid $780.3 million in state and local taxes in 2021.
As for the grooming.
Maybe you should take all that evidence to your local Vice Squad.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Spalumbos62

For the love of god. Please put it in perspective and stop with the scare tactic. They are not teaching sex education in these lower grades, it is done with age appropriate language, answering their questions and validating that, yes. It's ok if little Johnny has 2 dad's as parents..he still has a loving household. He's not coming from a freak show...many people are different and that's ok. I really don't understand where all this fear comes from. There's really no problem in the school's its the imagination of the grandparents.
I do believe most educators,doctors whatever believe your sexual preference is something you are born with.

I agree with the 1st paragraph. As to the 2nd paragraph.......Likely sexual orientation is a learned situation. But, that takes us back to the NATURE or NURTURE question.

[Madelaine Amee]

Originally Posted by bgamble3

Disney has revealed itself as groomers to small children. That info is on You Tube if you care to look it up. They do not deserve to remain tax free which is what they have enjoyed from the taxpayers when they were thought to be an entertainment company.
The elites of Disney were on digital media boasting about how they were going to increase their grooming of children to accept as normal, abnormal sexual activity.
The governor is doing his job and should be commended and supported for having the courage to go after this corporations attack against families and especially small children.

Where do you get the idea Disney does not pay taxes? If you are going to enter into this debate at least get your facts straight. This is what they paid in 2015, I imagine it is much higher now:

Disney is the largest taxpayer in Central Florida, paying approximately $566 million in state and local taxes each year and because they straddle the line in two different Florida counties (Orange and Osceola), both counties benefit from this money generating giant.

Walt Disney World Resort pays approximately $105 million annually in ad valorem taxes; an estimated $92.7 million is paid to Orange County and more than $10.9 million to Osceola County.

In Orange County, Disney pays more in taxes than the next 10 highest county taxpayers combined. Approximately $46 million of those funds go directly to education.

Disney generated approximately 33 percent of the Tourist Development Taxes collected in Orange County and approximately 24 percent of these taxes in Osceola County in 2013.

Disney paid or collected more than $495 million in state sales, use and communications taxes and local resort taxes for the surrounding communities in 2013.

In addition to the county taxes, Walt Disney World Resort paid more than $77.8 million in taxes to the Reedy Creek Improvement District in 2013. These tax dollars go toward building hundreds of millions of dollars worth of public infrastructure at no cost to taxpayers.

It might be interesting to know how much tax The Villages pays.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I've already stated twice that I disagree with killing the Reedy Creek special district---seems like overkill. But it is about shareholders and the fiduciary responsibility of the Disney board of directors, and the concept that Disney should not be making political statements in the first place. Also, don't forget that this is a government of the people, by the people and for the people-----and through their elected representatives the people of Florida have spoken. It's simply that certain groups don't like what they said. Who was it that famously quipped "elections have consequences"? Oh, yeah, can't mention it. But Disney's "freedom of speech" has consequences as well, just in this case I agree with you the retribution was too Draconian.

I strongly disagree that passing the recent bills had anything to do with representing the people of Florida. Not that there aren't many who agree with new laws, but they were written and passed for only one man in Florida, not the people of Florida. Can't argue that the government is "by" the people but "of" is questionable and "for" rarely enters the equation.

We do agree on the your last sentence.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I agree with the 1st paragraph. As to the 2nd paragraph.......Likely sexual orientation is a learned situation. But, that takes us back to the NATURE or NURTURE question.

I would say "possible" not "Likely", but that is just me.

And that is at least partly based on homosexuality is seen/documented throughout the animal kingdom. Since I personally believe in non-human rights, I guess that animals choosing to be gay could be possible.

And "deviant" behavior has been around for thousands of years, so chances are Liberals didn't invent it.

Nonhuman Rights Project

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Let's notice what it does NOT say:
It doesn't say "..through the power of unparalleled, heavily filtered storytelling, reflecting white-owned brands and the creative conservative minds of only straight white men and women who identify as such, and will never allow their customers to see any other possible variety of human on their property or in their products, thus ensuring that those minority customers are always reminded that their demographic will never be represented, because it's shameful and should be hidden and eliminated from view."

Agreed. I feel that a lot of what this is all about is what I would call "fear of losing the POWER of white superiority". Leaders that can try to slow down the descent of white superiority can attract donations and POWER to themselves. Fear is used as an emotion and as a weapon to that end.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

1/2 population…..

Please look back at replies 106, 112, and 133; there is no need to repeat them here.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by OhioBuckeye

Yea this is the problem, just because someone has a lot of pocket change they can’t run the country. I bet Walt Disney is trying to bust out of his coffin. Disneyland & their present CEO are way out of hand, they’re not little gods who can dictate or control the U.S. & people’s children! This is socialist or the way Communism control their people. I hope all parents stand up to Disney! God Bless America!

Or it could be the method that fascist cult members use to control the US. Think hard about this, PLEASE!

[Babubhat]

The only two words big business needs to say is No Comment

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Seriously??? No, not even you could be serious about that. It has nothing to do with minorities or demographics or Disney's attractions or products depicting all races or sexual orientations. It has to do with a publicly traded international company with a fiduciary obligation to its shareholders going out of its way to blabber on about a law that affects only teaching in grades K-3 in the state of Florida, which can only have a negative impact on its reputation as a family company and its bottom line.

One person's "blabber" is another person's social wisdom. Remember there are 2 sides to every coin!

[Madelaine Amee]

One more thing to think about:

Those pesky Disney attorneys are going to turn over Florida tax records and find out what all these big time developers are paying in taxes, that should be interesting

You poke a bear ..................... well you know the rest. But, you sure better know what you are doing.

[MartinSE]

Another interesting side of this discussion is that the law definitely targets a specific minority in our country, and yet, the founding fathers were very specific about protecting the minority from the majority. Agreed it is "backhanded" like so much today, where the language is vague enough to give them plausible deniability, and still specific enough to achieve the goals.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

It was a proposal when they made the statement.

The question of how it is a problem has been answered 20 times in this thread alone, and you still bloviate about other stuff, so excuse me if I see n o reason to explain it a 21st time, since you obviously are not interested.

And last, YOU do not get to DICTATE how companies operate. YOU can vote with your dollars and your speech.

Disney is and has been for a long time what is called a Socially Responsible Corporation. So, this comment baby them is completely in line with their publicly held position that corporations have a responsibility to the public to be responsible. If someone owns stock and disagrees with that position, they should not hold stock.

But, you repeated assertion that corporations should not do this is just flat WRONG and BS. And anybody can sue anybody in this country, it seems to be even a recreational pastime. But, any stock holders that want to sue, certainly can, but they will be hard pressed to win, since over 10 years ago, Disney publicly stated their position. Like suing a company for selling Adidas when they were known to sell them before you bought the stock.

The Walt Disney Company - A Leader In Corporate Social Responsibility | Business Chief North America

I agree with this post, Kudos!