Making those donations privately probably would defeat the purpose of showing support to the legislature.
"Keep donating or we'll punish you" is an interesting stance.
It can’t be legal, surely?
So taxes but for entities you can't put in a cage or screw over at will?
The only reason it's not formalized with all sorts of rules and process like taxes is because "entities you can't put in a cage of screw over at will" is a short enough list to be handled on a case by case basis.
Ah, yes, the new talking point that I’ve seen a lot of lately: “I’ll bet you haven’t even read it. Here, let me…” Yeah, save your patronizing, I read it just fine. And my take-away was, “don’t say gay” is about as accurate a summary as one is likely to get. Sure, those are exact words aren’t in there, but man, is that ever a weak rebuttal.
> Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.
Discussions on gender identity and sexual orientation are the only topics outlined as not allowed.
Actual sex education (whether it's the act itself, topics on puberty, etc.) seems to still be on the table.
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/?Tab=BillTex...
This seems to pretty straightforwardly say that schools can't talk about the existence of gay or transgender people in K-3, or ever if it's not "age appropriate or developmentally appropriate"... according to standards that the state gets to set.
You can’t logically ignore half the reality of a statement to claim victimhood.
Many people don't agree with this stance, both from a conceptual point of view, and that in practice it may lead impressionable children to want to modify their bodies to fit some idea of gender identity they've had instilled.
That's a pretty big claim that I've yet to see evidence for. Is this conjecture?
1. Source 1: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/spring-fever 2. Source 2: https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/sex-ed-barriers-and...
Like educators are already focused on providing age appropriate education, what is the point of this bill?
The other important distinction is that it is not just primary grade levels impacted, it is all levels (note the "or"s).
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/?Tab=BillTex...
Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.
Whether this can be reasonably interpreted as “don’t say gay” is an exercise left to the reader
Example, teen pregnancy rates, 7/1000 (New England) to 30/1000 (Louisiana): https://preview.redd.it/hjmbpqpbnkw41.png?width=640&crop=sma...
You'd think conservatives would want the same outcomes? Even abortion rates are higher in the South!
But, no, the only thing that's allowed to be divorced is their policy preferences from reality.
Teaching children that there is another option is not inherently sexual in nature, and the continued push to declare the very existence of non-heteroromantic orientations "sexual", and thus inappropriate, is a big part of the bigotry and oppression queer people of all types face.
No one is advocating that we show kids gay porn. They are advocating that we teach kids that being gay, bi, trans, aromantic, or anywhere else on the various spectra, is all fine and normal.
And it does not define what "sexual education" is.
> and be age appropriate
And it does not define what "age appropriate" is or specify what legislative body is reponsible for creating and maintaining that definition.
> unless you have some weird notion that a 7 year old needs to be taught about sex.
A chasm I see between people who have differing views of this legislation is around what "sex" means. Conservatives seem to focus very heavily on the idea that this is about teachers talking about sexual intercourse. The physical acts that adults engage in. Liberals interpret the term much more broadly to cover all of the ways that human sexuality affects society and families.
From the conservative perspective, it makes a lot of intuitive sense to prevent teachers from discussing things like foreplay, BDSM, lubrication, fellatio, etc. to small children.
From the liberal perspective, it is entirely impossible to talk about damn near anything related to human family structures and relationships if anything indirectly related to sexuality is off limits. "Why do most families have a mom and a dad?" "Where do babies come from?" "Why do they look like their parents sometimes and not other times?" "What does it mean to be adopted?" "What is the difference between a dad and a stepdad?" According to the literal interpretation of the law, none of these questions can even be hinted at inside a classroom.
So which is right? The text of the law itself is ambiguous, so you have to look at the subtext. I think we could all agree that it would be wrong to ship a live walrus to someone's house without their consent. But, as far as I know, there is no law specifically prohibiting it. Should there be? Probably not.
Legislatures have finite time, so laws are passed at a point in time because those advocating it feel that it solves a particular problem that is more important than other problems that could be solved. Understanding the intent behind those pushing the law is critical to knowing what it means. The text won't give you that. You have to look at the people and their agenda.
No, it doesn't. It says material addressing sexual orientation or gender identity cannot happen before a certain grade level. Applied strictly on its face, it would ban a lot of routine, uncontroversial content that no one (including it's sponsors) would want banned, because lots of material for kids implicitly addresses/displays orientation and gender identity, and pretty much no one cares except that cultural conservatives care if the orientations or identities involved do not fit their norms of exclusively heterosexual orientation and cisgender identity.
This, as well as the overt comments by the sponsors about the specific content they have pointed to as examples of concern, leads too concerns from others that the intent of the party whose base is culturally conservative and that dominates the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of Florida State government is not to apply the law strictly and even-handedly on its face, but selectively to suppress material according to culturally conservative values.
> and this is why you donate anonymously.
If Disney had to donate anonymously, I bet it wouldn't donate at all. It's a corporation, and whatever donations it makes are most likely PR expenditures (either internally or externally directed).
Most corporations don't actually care about politics, beyond (1) What's good for my business? & (2) What's good PR?
The interesting thing about Disney is that in this case they were caught between a contradictory (1) & (2). Which, to the parent's point, a more adept PR department / anonymous donations wouldn't have allowed to happen in the first place.
DeSantis' realpolitik is pretty skillful. In this case: if Disney was quiet, he avoided the headache of fighting them; if Disney loudly opposed, he got news and political base support out of fighting them. Win/win.
Is that legal?
And you think this is...what, normal? The way things should be? That by daring to even try (very ineptly) to be "neutral", Disney deserves retaliation from the vindictive petty autocrat in the Governor's mansion?
I mean, I don't at all think Disney comes up smelling like roses in this, but to shrug your shoulders and say, "eh, if you wanted to be treated fairly, you shouldn't have let anyone know you don't unquestioningly support everything the current administration wants" seems to be...the world's most supine moral position. (After all, if there's nothing to be done about how bad things are, you don't have to feel guilty for not doing anything, right?)
well yeah thats because its an amoral position. was that not clear? is that clear now?
I do this in a variety of countries, towards people of multiple parties in those countries sometimes, I was born in the US and subject to its indoctrination but its not possible for me personally to subscribe to an idea of treating the US differently: do the thing that gets influence without consequence. figure out what that thing is. some countries enshrine their corruption in the rule of law. cool.
I'm trying to say that, observing someone (whether human or corporation) fall afoul of that in such a very blatant way, and effectively saying, "Welp, you should've known not to criticize your overlords" helps to both normalize and perpetuate that kind of corruption and self-serving behavior.
And why are you advocating for the corrupt, ineffective, possibly illegal, and cowardly alternative?
You think Disney is entirely inept? Does their courage somehow scare you? "Please, dear corporation, wear a helmet"?
They took a stance, they'll be fine, they have a spine.
and this is why you donate anonymously. everyone likes to imagine Russians and Saudi's swaying US politics - the boogeyman du jour - but this is the more realistic outcome: retaliation by the incumbent party.
Just form the LLC, donate, shut it down before that state's reporting requirements come into effect.
for coders: an LLC instance rendered JIT