If you live in DC that might be an issue.
|
Not sure what you mean? What in the bill stops someone from suing in Florida over that? |
Look how you don't condemn the homophobia. We see you. |
"successfully" -- that doesn't rule out people suing and therefore intimidating school districts. Disgusting. |
And it's already happening. Look at the books removed by a Florida school district: https://twitter.com/DWUhlfelderLaw/status/1516899552426700804. There's books there with zero sexual content that are only there because the contain depictions of gay families (Everywhere Babies, for example). The "Don't Say Gay" bill is turning out to be exactly what people predicted it would be. |
Someone might sue the Florida schools for no good reason too
|
This is a very bizarre fantasy you've concocted in your head. |
But according to the wording of the law, any books with straight families can be banned too. |
Prove it! |
Oh it’s not a fantasy, it’s what’s happening. It will be a nightmare for your religious zealot of a governor. He is done as a serious presidential candidate. |
Which is why this bill might not survive. It's unbelievably vague and up for way too much interpretation. The fact that as many people just on this thread don't understand - despite claiming to have read it - that this bill applies to all students and not just K-3 shows how sneaky it's trying to be. It's way too broad and unclear and could bankrupt schools to boot. |
| So Disney is shutting down till DeSantis is removed from office. Wonder how long that would take? |
|
One for the Florida legislatures tried to add clarity to the bill but the one pushing it ( whose main campaign angle is stop the homos) vehemently objected saying clarifying it would gut it. The intent of the bill is 100% designed to dehumanize and the delegitimization of
LGBT families and kids. Disney can’t side with the far right conservative trolls and bigots because they don’t represent Disneys target market or the mainstream. |
According to the U.S. Supreme Court in Connally v. General Construction Co. (1926), a law is unconstitutionally vague when people “of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness_doctrine |
And/or, banning all discussion of "sexual orientation and gender identity," which by definition includes straight people, straight couples, and people whose gender identities conform with that which was assigned at birth, may also be overbroad and thus not constitutional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overbreadth_doctrine |