3. 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.
> An act relating to parental rights in education requiring district school boards to adopt procedures that comport with certain provisions of law... prohibiting classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels or in a specified manner;
It very explicitly states that the bill prohibits classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels.
There are plenty of parents, politicians and government employees who think that acknowledging that LGBT people exist, and should be respected as people, is not age appropriate. There are parents that are convinced that acknowledging their kids' trans peers' existence will convince them to be trans, too, and that "Timmy has two mommies" isn't age appropriate, either.
I've also heard supporters of the legislation claim that it's meant to prevent kids from being taught about sex, despite it already being illegal in Florida to teach kids in that age group about it.
Inspired by Florida's bill, HB 800 was introduced in Tennessee, which is very explicit about prohibiting educators from using any materials or lessons that normalize, address or support LGBT issues and lifestyles[2]:
> The state board is prohibited from approving for local adoption or granting a waiver for, and LEAs and public charter schools are prohibited from locally adopting or using in the public schools of this state, textbooks and instructional materials or supplemental instructional materials that promote, normalize, support, or address lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, or transgender (LGBT) issues or lifestyles.
Nearly a dozen states have proposed similar legislation that aren't afraid of saying the quiet part out loud.
[1] https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/...
[2] https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillN...
Do you honestly believe that this legislation prohibits the discussion of straight relationships?
The UK had similar legislation in the 80s and 90s, and it just meant that teachers and others were afraid to talk about these issues at all and ultimately, kids suffered:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28
There's now very little support for that kind of legislation in the UK.
Look, I'm one of the most sensitive people to legislative generality and ambiguity to attempt to exploit, but this one isn't that tough to connect the dots on.
People are uncomfortable with adult life choices taking center stage in early phases of education. Cis-hetero is not remotely emphasized at that point as anything more than the "historically traditional default by accident of being how biology mechanically works", and even then, adoption, and many other accidents of life can lead to the same awkwardness introduced by other lifestyles or orientations. And that's all okay, but all the more reason to just pass over the tordid messiness of human social relationships in general until at least maybe algebra has a snowball's chance in hell of being absorbed, because at least then the student should be acclimatized to receiving things that seem as arbitrary and pernicious as the awful things we adults foist on each other.
It's not a conspiracy. It's just, trying to deal with matters with the least awkwardness all around.
Discussion of orientation is only age inappropriate because of bigots who consider discussion of straight relationships to be “normal” and so acceptable.
The stated intent in the bill’s preamble, is to target lgbtq kids. The stated intent of the law makers voting for it was to criminalize acknowledging lgbtq people are humans.
If the bill wanted to not be an obvious attempt to dehumanize lgbtq people it could have removed the discriminatory language: ban discussion of gender and relationships.
Ban those young kid faux-“home coming”s, etc
But that is not what this is about. The stated view of the Republican Party, and the Conservative movement in general, is that lgbtq people are not people. That their orientation or gender identity is wrong. That lgbtq people are inherently less deserving of human rights, and that acknowledging there existence is inherently a matter of “adult” sexual perversions.
A Minority of CA based Disney employees where upset.
The Majority of FL based Disney employees did not want Disney to get involved in politics at all
Time will tell if their bold move to shun over 50% of their customers by adopting CA politics will work out for them in the long run
A lot of those same people who believe that are bitter that some teachers are LGBT and are allowed to teach their kids, and legislation that prevents teachers from discussing their lives, the lives of students with two moms or dads, the lives of students who are LGBT themselves, or any kind of LGBT acceptance, is how they're coping with it. That, and creating a defamatory crusade and moral panic against the people they don't like.
1. Many teachers in Florida started teaching kids (grade 3 and below) about sexual identity matters (aka CRT).
2. Parents got upset and legislature passed a bill to ban such activity (again, for grade 3 and below). The left promptly called it a "dont say gay bill" and the right responded with the "anti-groomers bill" label.
3. Disney execs came to rescue the losing left and threw a few accusations on DeSantis.
4. The mostly conservative legislature got upset that Disney is messing with politics and retaliated with this bill, to strip Disney from its special status.
My guess is that Disney will respond with a PR campaign to smear DeSantis.
2. So? A significant (and similar) group of parents got upset by desegregation
3. Disney said dehumanizing lgbtq people, especially kids, is wrong. Kind of meh on the political speech of corporations, but the 1st amendment lets that happen in the US.
4. In response to Disney exercising it’s first amendment rights (that the GOP fervently defends when it’s people firing lgbt employees for existing), the GOP explicitly retaliated. A clear government suppression of protected speech. That said a bunch of what I’ve read suggests this actually just ends up costing the tax payers money instead? (I’m in general anti these kinds of laws exempting business from, well, the law)
My guess is Disney will decide whether this cost them money, and if it is take the legislature to court for a clear first amendment violation - the various legislators explicitly said it was retaliation, so I imagine it would be a moderately clear cut case. But then I am not a lawyer.
3 & 4 - I'm not sure if 1A applies to businesses. Does it mean businesses have right to petition the gov and demand change? Does it apply to businesses owned by foreign entities? I doubt it. On paper, nobody retaliated: legislature simply reconsidered some old statute.
My opinion is that Disney crossed the line here, but Florida's response is awkward and doesn't achieve much.
3 & 4 - The GOP has consistently stated that the 1st amendment applies to businesses, which is why laws forcing news to, for example, be fair and balanced, are illegal. The GOP has also argued businesses have religious freedom, and so can fire people for being LGBTQ if it goes against the owners "sincerely held religious beliefs".
> CRT
I don't think CRT means what you think it means.
> Christopher Rufo, a prominent opponent of critical race theory, in March acknowledged intentionally using the term to describe a range of race-related topics and conjure a negative association.
> “We have successfully frozen their brand — ‘critical race theory’ — into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions,” wrote Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. “We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category. The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think ‘critical race theory.’”
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/05/29/critical...