Is it appropriate for a person to use poltical power to punish private corporations? Corporations are people now ( Citizens United ) and so should be entitled to free speech as such. I created this poll with the Ron Desanctimonius ( Trumps nick name for him ) Vrs Disney feud in Florida. Where a sitting Governor is using his political power to punish a private corporation for voicing a differing opinion on a topic than that of which the Governor holds. In this case, LGBTQ rights. Based soley on this, Pudding Ronnie went ape$hit, and has been doing everything in his power to punish Disney for daring to speak out against him, and his ideals. But is this EVER appropriate? A senator? Congressional Represenative? Mayor? PRESIDENT? ( thinking here of Trumps upcoming Vengance tour if he is terrifyingly re-elected ) Personally, I do not believe this is a good use of a politicians time, money, and state resources.
You forgot the hypocrisy option. "Acceptable when my side does it, but not the other side." If people are being honest, that seems to be a common position.
Given the bitter tone of your opening post, voting your poll is a waste of time. If you want want a real discussion, try to look more neutral.
The poll itself isn't politically biased though. Some polls on here there's literally no option for the other side to choose honestly. With how republicans have been against stifling the free speech of conservatives via deplatforming them, they would be against DeSantis's actions vs Disney as well if they were consistent.
My wife and I were Disney pass holders for almost 20 years. The parks have gone down hill. Some of the rides are entertaining, but the new ones can’t handle the crowds the way they used to. The lines are hours long. You can pay an extra fee to get slightly ahead of them, but it doesn’t amount to much. If you are willing to pay thousands, you can most skip the lines. For eight people my brother in law payed $9,500 including tip for 8 hours. Disney had a deal in Florida which made them into an independent entity within the state. It was done when the state was desperate for economic development. Those days have passed. Why should Disney have their own little state within a state? As for Disney entertainment, they have become very political. They are now running the anti-American rhetoric on the their children’s entertainment channels that is truly offensive. When you say that “Lincoln did not free the slaves” it is historically inaccurate and an oversimplification of the issues that Lincoln faced early in his presidency. If you want to see the truth, see the Spielberg film, Lincoln. When you say, “Slaves built America” that is historically inaccurate. This is the history they feed to children. As for the LGBQX thing, I frankly don’t want to be lectured to when I am looking for entertainment. They have needless stuck this stuff in their latest films, and they have bombed at the box office. Disney is laying off people in large numbers. They have forgotten who their core customers are.
What is LGBTQ rights? Which rights in the constitution are they not covered by? So which missing laws are they fighting for?
The right to be treated in the same fashion, and give the same oppertunities as any other non lgbtq person. Rights to marry whomever they wish to for example.
Disney might not should have had that district but it looked like it saved the state money and time and allowed the park to operate more efficiently. If ron would have said we are stopping all special districts in the state (there are something like 1700 of them) that would have been one thing. I doubt anyone would have cared. Instead they stripped them of it due to their speech. The poll itself isn’t partisan, it will just cause some to see their own cognitive dissonance which is why it’s easier to just ignore. Not to mention ron has now threatened special taxes, toll roads and building a prison right next to the park so even the excuse of “Florida was taking back a benefit” doesn’t hold water. Do you think government should be able to target individual and companies for their speech, yes or no?
I think the issue is more they have to acknowledge what they are actually advocating for and when left with a poll the only way to not do some reflection on their own views is to dismiss the question. You can put most of them into option C as @LiveUninhibited posted: Acceptable when my side does it, but not the other side
Under US Code Chapter 1 Section 1 corporations have always been considered people. And since a corporation is nothing more than an assemblage of people with a common goal........... Of course states may word it somewhat different but the premise is the same. If a city, county or state affords a special tax provision to a company and that company no longer respects the will of the people can that be rescinded? Of course it can.
absolutely politicians should have the right to punish corporations but sadly its the other way round. corporations are above political parties.
banned? no. a rational discussion may be encouraged once students reach an age at which they can understand what is being discussed. what is being removed is the normalization of deviant behavior. don't get me wrong, i'm a big fan of deviant behavior. however, i have never once considered exposing children to any of my favorites. and before you start whining; yes, homosexuality is deviant behavior as is deviates from the norm in both form and function. this doesn't mean it is bad or evil, merely that the normal biological functions of human sexuality are not fulfilled by such a relationship. then we have the whole transgender thing. this is where the parental push-back went into overdrive and deservedly so. men are men and women are women and no amount of surgery or hormone therapy is going to change that fact. the push to normalize and validate what is so obviously a mental/emotional illness just took things a step too far.
Who gets to determine what is deviant? The state? And you are incorrect — even gay characters that do not display any “behavior” have been removed as high as 12th grade. So you are arguing that anything not compromised of 50%+ of the population should be able to be a banned item, yes? The number of people that believe sex is changeable is exceedingly small. They were seeking representation to reduce stigma and thus reducing suicide rates in trans people, especially trans children.
deviant behavior is defined as that which the standards of some set norm. that norm is defined by form, function and, to a lesser extent, custom. as representatives of the state, schools should be required to adhere to a set of agreed upon societal norms. it is not up to the educational system to arbitrarily alter those norms for the sake of an educator's agenda. that is the prerogative of the parent, not the state. should the parent wish to introduce their child to such material, that's just fine and dandy. neither the educational system nor the individual educators has the right to inhibit what information a parent may wish to allow their children access to. you seem to like to throw the term "banned" around quite a bit, but that's not what is being proposed. we go to great lengths to protect our children, limiting their access to a number of things that are the domain of adults. we do this because they are children and, as such, lack the experience to make an informed choice in many matters. the cutoff point for this protection is generally 18 to 21 years of age and before that point it is the parents' responsibility to make these decisions. what is being proposed are merely measures to see to it that educators do not usurp that parental responsibility. have some of them gone too far? of course, but this is a natural human response to decades of basic parental rights too often being abrogated by ivory tower academics and agenda driven malcontents. this is the counter-revolution in response to the actions of taxpayer funded institutions that have considered themselves above the natural law for far too long. in time they will settle down and some sort of equilibrium will be reached. as for exposing children to transgender ideology as a means of some sort of treatment... that's a load of crap, but i think you already know that. we do not treat schizophrenics by reinforcing their delusions nor do we treat major depression by telling the afflicted how horrible the world really is. one of the first steps in treating any sort of disorder is to recognize that there is a problem and this is the opposite of what we have done with those who are mentally/emotionally incapable of coming to grips with their sex. we have been on a consistent drive to let such people believe that their predicament is perfectly normal and to force the rest of the world to go along with their delusion. this is madness and should never have been considered a viable solution in the first place. altering the societal attitudes toward gender roles is one thing, a process that is constantly ongoing. attempting to alter the core structure of a human being to turn it into something it can never be is another thing altogether. this is more a matter of immediate gratification and change for the sake of change than of treating the afflicted. concerned with suicides? treat the anxiety and depression that lead to it, don't reinforce the delusions that lead to the anxiety and depression.
LGBT people make up around 20% of the US population. More than all minority races, more than all religions except declining Christianity. Banning their representation and all traces of their existence in schools because of agenda doesn’t make logical sense. You need a better reason than you feel like it isn’t normal. Natural law? Homosexuality exists in most species so that’s another L if you are seeking to impose your agenda using what is natural as a metric. There is an entire field of study that seeks to understand and treat trans issues to prevent them from killing themselves. Most of the research shows some cannot be treated without using medical intervention. I don’t think trans issues need to be taught per se but banning mention of them is only going to decrease tolerance. And the reason I say ban a lot — is because that’s what is happening
Corporations should not be persons (which is the correct legal term, 'people' still connotates actual humans, whereas a person is derived from persona and connotates merely a legal identity, not a human). The practice of giving a nonexistant entity rights is just a bureaucratic smokescreen to obfuscate corruption. The govt allows this bureaucratic obfuscation because corporations are often co-opted to carry out illegal activities that the govt cant get away with. The govt then fines the corporation a tiny fraction of the profits the corp made in its illegal activity and both get what they want, instead of the criminals calling the shots going to prison. As far as Disney and DeSantis are concerned... while it refreshing to see govt and corp duking it out instead of working in concert, I remain skeptical that what we see is whats actually happening. I'll be surprised if wedont find out in some years this was a smokescreen for Disney buying up water rights or avoiding a lawsuit or some other scammery with the help of FL state gov. Thats usually the sort of thing this turns out to be.
There is literally NO SPECIES OF MAMMEL ON EARTH who does not have members who partcicipate in "homosexual" behavior. Every single species on the planet does so. Pelple who claims its "not natural" are just either un-informed, or willingly stupid.
