Florida Anti LGBT

[poundmyhole]

NBC, followed by ABC, Forbes and Fox, reported that Florida's official tourism site QUIETLY removed the LGBTQ Travel Section.

From NBC:

"Florida’s official tourism website quietly removed a landing page for the state’s LGBTQ-friendly travel destinations sometime in the past four months.

The website for the state’s tourism marketing corporation, VisitFlorida.com, had an “LGBTQ Travel” section that no longer exists, according to archived versions of the site viewable on the Internet Archive. The landing page previously featured blog posts and videos related to the state’s gay-friendly beaches, Pride events and LGBTQ road trip ideas.

“There’s a sense of freedom to Florida’s beaches, the warm weather and the myriad activities — a draw for people of all orientations, but especially appealing to a gay community looking for a sense of belonging and acceptance,” the landing page used to read. “Whether you’re a couple seeking a romantic getaway or a modern family searching for kid-friendly fun, here are some LGBTQ-friendly destinations for you, throughout the Sunshine State.”

The link where the LGBTQ Travel page had been ([think before following links] https://www.visitflorida.com/things-to-do/cultural/lgbtq/) now directs users to a general “things to do” landing page. It is unclear exactly when the landing page was removed, but it was available as recently as April 19, according to the Internet Archive. It is also unclear why Visit Florida, a nonprofit created as a public-private partnership by the Florida Legislature in 1996, removed the landing page and who was behind the decision.

The website does continue to provide travel information for destinations specific to other minority groups, including Black and Hispanic travelers.

Rachel Covello runs OutCoast, a travel blog that promotes Florida as an LGBTQ-inclusive destination. Covello, a lesbian who lives in St. Petersburg, said the “LGBTQ Travel” landing page has existed on Visit Florida’s website since at least 2021. She said she first noticed that the landing page was missing last month.

“It really feels like we were just erased in a way,” Covello said.

“We want LGBT people to come here, we have really cool places to highlight and showcase,” she added.“But when the state-run platform removes any trace of us being in Florida, it sends a pretty strong message to our travelers, to our community in Florida.”

Not all references to LGBTQ people or LGBTQ-friendly places have been removed from the site. For example, if one types “LGBT” in the site’s search function, five results pop up, three of them for venues described as “LGBT Friendly.”

Maryann Ferenc, a small business owner who served as the chair of Visit Florida from 2017 to 2018, said there was a lot of LGBTQ-related travel information on the site during her time, including information about suggested itineraries and recommended beaches. She questioned whether stripping the site of its LGBTQ Travel section and other LGBTQ-related content s was a smart business move.

“To be a great tourism community, you need to be open and welcoming. That’s the basics of hospitality, right?” she said. “When I was chair, we talked about, ‘Could we be No. 1 in hospitality? How could we measure being the most hospitable state in the Union?’ This certainly wouldn’t qualify for that.”

Ferenc added that diversifying the state’s tourism industry was one of her main objectives when she led the organization.

“All of our diverse markets are important to us getting all of the business that is our fair share of the statewide, national and international tourism market,” she said. “It’s important that we have that diversity, not only because of the amount of money that will be spent by a diverse market, but by the diverse places in which that money will be spent.” 

The removal of the LGBTQ Travel section from VisitFlorida.com is the latest in a yearslong effort to restrict queer history and the expression of LGBTQ identities in the state.

Since 2021, Florida has enacted legislation to limit the instruction of sexual orientation and gender identity in its public schools, to limit the ability of trans minors from accessing transition-related health care or from participating on school sports teams and to defund diversity programs at Florida colleges. 

In recent years, Florida lawmakers also unsuccessfully attempted to limit drag shows, an artform that has decades-old roots in the LGBTQ community. Some of the state’s schools have also voluntarily removed or banned LGBTQ-related books or books with queer characters. 

Just last week, New College of Florida tossed hundreds of books in the trash, with many of the discarded titles appearing to be related to LGBTQ issues, race and women’s rights.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis notably waged a yearslong legal battle with Disney, which has a massive corporate footprint in the state, after the company came out against the state’s so-called “Don’t Say Gay” law. Disney settled with the state this year.

Last year, the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBTQ advocacy group, and the statewide LGBTQ nonprofit Equality Florida issued a travel advisory detailing the risks of traveling to the state and citing “the devastating impacts of laws that are hostile to the LGBTQ community.”

A recent survey of 2,300 LGBTQ Americans by the International LGBTQ+ Travel Association (IGLTA) found that 52% of respondents indicated hesitancy or outright refusal to travel to Florida due to anti-LGBTQ legislation passed in recent years. However, about 66% of respondents also said that they would be willing to visit LGBTQ-friendly cities within states that have anti-LGBTQ laws. 

In 2017, within days of former president Trump’s inauguration, his administration similarly scrubbed nearly all mentions of LGBTQ people and issues from the websites of federal agencies and the White House. "

 

WE are the people, but we LOSE our power if we don't VOTE these assholes out!  Every election we are told "this is the most important election", and it may seem like calling wolf.  Seriously, though, THIS ELECTION IS the most important one!  I am not a fan of fear tactics, however, consider what WILL happen if we don't vote and Trump wins.  In general, if Republicans win anywhere.  It blows my mind that Trump even got elected in the first place.  Had our country gone by the popular vote instead of electors, Hillary would have been our president.  Trump was smart by holding the rallies in those midwestern states and that's how he got the electoral college majority.  When he didn't win in 2020, we know what happened.  Yet, again he is running!  Just a few short years ago, this country had standards for those running for office.  Somehow, Trump broke that mold and is being welcomed to run and become a president even with all the scandal and felonies!  

 

Please, do whatever you can to listen, educate, and encourage everyone who is eligible to vote to just get it done.  I don't think the majority of Americans want to wake up the day after the election with dread and anxiety and above all fear for what would come if the Republican's hold the presidency, house and senate.  For that matter, ALL states would be wise to oust their Republican governments in favor of Democrats or Independents.  If not, we can expect every state to be turned into what Florida has become.  

 

Just a side note.  I have always thought that no matter the office a person holds, there should be term limits.  There just isn't true representation of "the people" when the same person is there for decades.  It also isn't true representation when the majority of those in these seats got there by money.  The middle class and lower is not made of money.  Politics should not be about money.  If someone wants to run for office, everyone should be on the same playing field with caps on the amount each seat may use, amount of air time, etc.  It should all be equal.  I honestly would like to see that ALL government mayors, governors, state and federal legislatures be cleaned out and replaced with an equal playing field for all.  That's true representation.

[BootmanLA]

2 hours ago, poundmyhole said:

Just a side note.  I have always thought that no matter the office a person holds, there should be term limits.  There just isn't true representation of "the people" when the same person is there for decades.  It also isn't true representation when the majority of those in these seats got there by money.  The middle class and lower is not made of money.  Politics should not be about money.  If someone wants to run for office, everyone should be on the same playing field with caps on the amount each seat may use, amount of air time, etc.  It should all be equal.  I honestly would like to see that ALL government mayors, governors, state and federal legislatures be cleaned out and replaced with an equal playing field for all.  That's true representation.

Term limits have positive AND negative effects, and I can see these at the state level very clearly. Louisiana was one of the last (if not the last) states to enact term limits for its state legislature, which we did in the mid-1990's. Here's what we've found.

Before term limits, in any given 4-year term, roughly 5-8% of legislators resigned during the term, most often because they were elected to a higher office or appointed to a state position, like a departmental secretary. At the end of a 4-year term, somewhere in the vicinity of 20-25% of people either retired (chose not to run again) or were defeated for re-election. Term limits has NOT substantially raised that number over the 12-year maximum under term limits; what it's done is compress the resignations to the end of that 12 year period (with correspondingly fewer during the course of the term).

Moreover, before term limits, one would typically have to serve two or three terms, at a minimum, before being appointed as chairman or vice chairman of a standing committee (where legislation begins its process). That experience made it possible for committees to weed out dumb ideas, and chairmen had learned, by then, how to work with the opposite side to get important bills passed. And individual legislators could begin to study particular areas of interest, often under the mentorship of older, more experienced members who had become subject matter experts in particular fields.

Now, we routinely have legislators starting their second term being named committee chairmen, without the necessary experience to even manage the members' interests, much less help broker compromises between the governor's office and opposition legislators, or between advocates for both sides of a contentious issue. There is, in other words, a power vacuum.

And into that vacuum step staff and lobbyists. Unlike many people, I don't consider "lobbyist" a dirty word; there are lobbyists for conservation groups and for petrochemical plants, for senior citizens and for nursing home operators, for doctors and for hospitals and for nurses, all of whom may be at odds with each other over a measure that affects them both. What ends up happening now, especially when a large new "freshman" class of legislators enters, is that the lobbyists basically bypass most of the legislators, cut deals they can both live with, and present the compromise to the inexperienced committee members who vote for it because they don't understand the issue themselves. And if the bills come out of committee, unless there's some major opposition from a different quarter (and that opposition has deep pockets that it's used in the past for donations to elect some of those members), the compromises just sail through, with no one in the legislature itself having actually read much of the bill.

In our legislature, the staff are non-partisan (there's not a separate Republican staff and Democratic staff). But the important staff are assigned by committee, they're responsible for drafting the bills and amendments, whether the idea comes from the legislator herself or from a lobbyist who brought the idea to the legislator. They become the experts (they always have, but they don't have legislators who are also experts to look at the product). And after four or five years as the staff attorney for the Health and Welfare committee, they get hired to work for the Hospital Association or the Medical Society or whomever, having "earned" that position by getting that group's bills through the process.

And of course neither the lobbyists nor the staff are elected by anyone. 

As for money: for better or worse, money amounts to the ability to get your message out, especially as legislative district sizes keep growing and growing in terms of number of people. In 1963, when I was born, the average US House district had 410,481 people. Today, it's over 760,000 people, and we no longer have just three broadcast networks and a handful of newspapers in each district. We have fewer newspapers, thousands of "news" websites, multiple cable and online news channels, and more. It takes money to reach the people in the district, like it or not. To arbitrarily cap the amount you can spend really is tantamount to capping how much you can say or how many people you can reach, and that's a major infringement on political speech, the most protected category of speech there is.

In short, as appealing as term limits, clean slates, and limited campaigns sounds, it's wholly impractical and can have horrendous consequences in the execution.

[PozBearWI]

Hmm, perhaps it is a good thing Wisconsin doesn't have legislative term limits....

[BootmanLA]

I'll also note: the 12-year term limit here applies to all the members. So what we end up with is a Speaker of the House or President of the Senate who has, at MOST, eight years of legislative experience, sometimes none as a chairman. Because the office goes to the member in each chamber who can garner 50% + 1 vote, there's a certain degree of popularity involved. But the leading candidates for presiding officer also have often had their eye on the spot for years, and if they're in a relatively safe seat for re-election, they can encourage their supporters to give to a PAC affiliated with the member - and then the member can donate from that PAC to legislators who are facing tougher re-election battles (and who will be, ahem, "grateful" for the financial support. State legislator races are often low-dollar, relatively speaking (as in under $100,000 spent), so getting $2,500 from a Speaker/President candidate can be very helpful to both.

Prior to term limits, a candidate for Speaker or President usually had at least 3, sometimes 4 terms completed before running. That's experience that can't be gotten in two terms.

[SomewhereonNeptune]

On 8/24/2024 at 4:04 PM, poundmyhole said:

Since 2021, Florida has enacted legislation to limit the instruction of sexual orientation and gender identity in its public schools, to limit the ability of trans minors from accessing transition-related health care or from participating on school sports teams and to defund diversity programs at Florida colleges. 

In recent years, Florida lawmakers also unsuccessfully attempted to limit drag shows, an artform that has decades-old roots in the LGBTQ community. Some of the state’s schools have also voluntarily removed or banned LGBTQ-related books or books with queer characters. 

Just last week, New College of Florida tossed hundreds of books in the trash, with many of the discarded titles appearing to be related to LGBTQ issues, race and women’s rights.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis notably waged a yearslong legal battle with Disney, which has a massive corporate footprint in the state, after the company came out against the state’s so-called “Don’t Say Gay” law. Disney settled with the state this year.

So I don't disagree that there is a 'rightward' shift in policies on the State level in Florida, and I agree that DeSantis embroiled himself in areas in which he shouldn't have (the Disney action, for one). But I need to point out the following in the above with HR Bill #1557: Parental Rights in Education. (see link) Nowhere in the text of that bill is it written "Don't say gay". And yes, I've read it.  

The actual legislation stipulates that parents must be disclosed on topics that are suggested for classroom instruction, and that any instruction must be "age-appropriate". I would think that with the backlash against child predation that the LGBTQIA2S++ community would be all for supporting age appropriate instruction and not subjecting kids who are say 8 years old from inappropriate instruction about rather adult topics. Ok, Drag Queen Story Hour is one thing, but reading that has strong sexual overtones being put in libraries and assigned as mandatory might be a bridge too far. Ultimately, parents should be the decision-makers for how they want their children reared (no pun intended). Before they're educated on sexuality that isn't age-appropriate, should they be taught about adult topics that have not included sexual and reproductive functions? That's the thrust of the law. It doesn't state that you "cannot say gay", but that any discussion of sexuality must be appropriate for children at a young age. Not here to debate this topic but rather to provide the link to the actual legal text to dispel any misinformation. 

I wish I had an answer on "why" Florida removed LGBTQIA2S++ references from the state's websites, and sorry that the community seems upset over their perceived marginalization. That doesn't speak for the entire state, however. St. Pete is by far a very gay/queer friendly city, as is Lauderdale, Miami, Orlando, and even the Keys. There are definitely hoteliers who cater to the LGBTQ community and we have at least 2 campgrounds that are absolutely gay-friendly and queer-focused. I suspect you'll see changes come in '24 and '26 based on Rick Scott being vulnerable in his Senate seat and DeSantis helping to swing the pendulum back to center at the next gubernatorial election. My county has endured several DeSantis appointees in the past couple years and they've been an unmitigated disaster. We voted all of them except one in the recent primaries, so people are waking up to what he represents: Political cronyism of the highest order.

 

[poundmyhole]

Lots of great info guys - seriously!  Opened my eyes to some things of which I was not aware.  Thanks!

 

I admit that growing up I had little interest in government and politics.  As I grew older, that interest grew.  I am no expert for sure.  But having seen what has been happening especially these past 8 years has just amazed me.  I do feel strongly that the bulk of Americans are not being truly represented by those elected.  It shouldnt be a popularity event that is in large part due to the money that is spent.  It shouldnt be about resources.  If you have a millionaire with all sorts of millionaire associates and someone who isn't, the likelihood of that person without those resources winning, though a better candidate, is slim to none.  Thats why I mention caps or a pool with limits.  I dont know thats the answer, but I do know that there are far too many "representatives" doing as they want or are told with no regard to who they represent.

 

On a different note, I am no conspiracy freak, but what I have been seeing here in Ft Lauderdale is the deliberate and systematic push to reduce the middle and lower classes living in the downtown area.  There has been thousands of new condos and apartments priced to cater to the "haves" and almost nothing in affordable housing.  And when it happens, its presented as if it was a huge favor.  No matter, the numbers of units pale in comparison.  For those properties that are dedicated to affordable housing, the location is likely far less desirable lmk than other housing and built at places within feet of a railroad.

I also see our seniors who have owned their condo for years now being forced to sell because new laws were created that greatly increase assoc dues, special assessments, and crazy insurance.  Meanwhile the developers are getting great deals snapping many of them with the intention of building yet more higher end units and not as aged.

[BootmanLA]

16 hours ago, SomewhereonNeptune said:

But I need to point out the following in the above with HR Bill #1557: Parental Rights in Education. (see link) Nowhere in the text of that bill is it written "Don't say gay". And yes, I've read it.  

As someone who has worked with legislation and legislative text for over 35 years now, I can assure you that the bill doesn't have to CONTAIN the words "don't say gay" to have that effect.

16 hours ago, SomewhereonNeptune said:

The actual legislation stipulates that parents must be disclosed on topics that are suggested for classroom instruction, and that any instruction must be "age-appropriate". I would think that with the backlash against child predation that the LGBTQIA2S++ community would be all for supporting age appropriate instruction and not subjecting kids who are say 8 years old from inappropriate instruction about rather adult topics. Ok, Drag Queen Story Hour is one thing, but reading that has strong sexual overtones being put in libraries and assigned as mandatory might be a bridge too far. Ultimately, parents should be the decision-makers for how they want their children reared (no pun intended). Before they're educated on sexuality that isn't age-appropriate, should they be taught about adult topics that have not included sexual and reproductive functions? That's the thrust of the law. It doesn't state that you "cannot say gay", but that any discussion of sexuality must be appropriate for children at a young age. Not here to debate this topic but rather to provide the link to the actual legal text to dispel any misinformation. 

You're highlighting the inconsistencies that are the fundamental problem with the bill. A drag queen reading a child a book is no different from Barney the Dinosaur or Elmo reading a child a book; it's an adult in a costume, or a puppet, and there's nothing sexual, inherently, in wearing clothes of the opposite sex. It CAN be - but then so can a woman's outfit including a lower cut neckline, a bare midriff, or much of her legs showing. So can a man with a shirt unbuttoned halfway to the navel, or wearing pants that are tight across the butt. Or... well, almost any clothing could be "sexual" to someone else, depending on his or her interests. But the only one they're getting riled up about is the drag queens.

And of course no one wants stories with strong sexual overtones being read to children. But again: no one is going to object to a reading that includes Prince Charming kissing Snow White to awaken her from her curse. They lose their shit if Prince Charming kisses a young man, though. Why is one appropriate, and the other forbidden? Or alternatively, no one is going to object if the teacher Miss Jones gets married over the fall break and comes back as Mrs. Smith, and they won't object if she tells them her husband's name is John Smith. But watch what happens when Mr. Jones gets married and comes back as Mr. Smith-Jones and tells the kids his husband's name is Trevor Smith-Jones. Suddenly we're "sexualizing" the kids and it's inappropriate to "discuss same sex relationships" even when it's patently obvious there's no issue with discussing opposite sex relationships.

And no, parents shouldn't get a veto over saying some people's marriages can be mentioned and others' cannot.

16 hours ago, SomewhereonNeptune said:

I wish I had an answer on "why" Florida removed LGBTQIA2S++ references from the state's websites, and sorry that the community seems upset over their perceived marginalization. That doesn't speak for the entire state, however. St. Pete is by far a very gay/queer friendly city, as is Lauderdale, Miami, Orlando, and even the Keys. There are definitely hoteliers who cater to the LGBTQ community and we have at least 2 campgrounds that are absolutely gay-friendly and queer-focused. I suspect you'll see changes come in '24 and '26 based on Rick Scott being vulnerable in his Senate seat and DeSantis helping to swing the pendulum back to center at the next gubernatorial election. My county has endured several DeSantis appointees in the past couple years and they've been an unmitigated disaster. We voted all of them except one in the recent primaries, so people are waking up to what he represents: Political cronyism of the highest order.

I have an answer. We all have an answer. It's just that the state is being dishonest (through refusing to comment) about that answer. The point is not that there aren't queer-friendly places and institutions in Florida; it's that the state used to allow them to be highlighted in one spot on the web because INTERESTED PEOPLE WANTED THAT INFORMATION. Note that you can still go on the site and pull up lists of outdoor and adventure places to go; you can still go on the site and pull up major shopping destinations; you can still go on the site and pull up listings of arts and cultural destinations. There's even still (for the moment) a link where you can go research African-American heritage travel locations. But not a list of LGBT places. Gee, I wonder why that could be, especially given that the places who were listed there said it helped bring in tourist business for their locations? 

Pretending that "we just can't know" what this means or "the bill doesn't actually SAY 'don't say gay' in the text" is just wildly irresponsible. We absolutely know. And it's absolutely going to have that effect. 

[PozBearWI]

... 🙂  And BootmanLA drops the mike.  

Truly kudos my brother!

[Poz50something]

3 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Pretending that "we just can't know" what this means or "the bill doesn't actually SAY 'don't say gay' in the text" is just wildly irresponsible. We absolutely know. And it's absolutely going to have that effect. 

Tell that to the many Republican gays - esp. in Flori-duh!!! All I can say is remember when in 1979, so many gays voted for Reagan? And then AIDS happened... 

[PozBearWI]

Of course, there is no connection between Ronnie and AIDS; save that as a leader he figured it was a self limiting problem.  

[SomewhereonNeptune]

7 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

As someone who has worked with legislation and legislative text for over 35 years now, I can assure you that the bill doesn't have to CONTAIN the words "don't say gay" to have that effect.

But then based on the rest of your post, it's all subjective based on anyone's individual interpretation. The bill says ANY discussion needs to be age appropriate. 

7 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

You're highlighting the inconsistencies that are the fundamental problem with the bill. A drag queen reading a child a book is no different from Barney the Dinosaur or Elmo reading a child a book; it's an adult in a costume, or a puppet, and there's nothing sexual, inherently, in wearing clothes of the opposite sex. It CAN be - but then so can a woman's outfit including a lower cut neckline, a bare midriff, or much of her legs showing. So can a man with a shirt unbuttoned halfway to the navel, or wearing pants that are tight across the butt. Or... well, almost any clothing could be "sexual" to someone else, depending on his or her interests. But the only one they're getting riled up about is the drag queens.

So anything can be arousing to any individual based on their fetishes and taste. That's the summary of your comment. I don't disagree, and I'm not objecting to drag queens...or Barney or clowns or anything else. I don't have kids, so I don't really give a fuck either way. In my view, it's up to involved parents discussing in school board meetings, hopefully without weaponizing law enforcement against parents for expressing concerns. I'll get to subjective experiences in a second, but bear in mind that I've done activism against elected officials for shutting down citizens in public comment when they disagree, as well legal action for election irregularities (spoiler: We settled with protections against that recurring). My experience is subjective to me, yours is likewise subjective to you.

7 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

And of course no one wants stories with strong sexual overtones being read to children.

I didn't get that by reading the rest of your response, BootmanLA. And there are age appropriate ways of introducing a same-sex marriage to say an 8 year old child. What has made its way into classrooms are non-age appropriate texts that discuss the mechanics of masturbation or gay sex specifically in a school library where any pre-teen could access them. So if you don't want that, I don't see that we disagree much. But again, my intent was to state the actual wording of the bill, not how people perceive that. You've previously referenced how each person can interpret something differently. Moving on...

7 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

And no, parents shouldn't get a veto over saying some people's marriages can be mentioned and others' cannot.

I'm fine with the premise. And I think we agree there is an age-appropriate way of explaining this to say a 6-8 year old. What you're inferring was not specifically indicated by the bill. Mr. Jones gets married to Mr. Smith and becomes Mr. Jones-Smith. You can explain that to a child. Should we be explaining what they do in the privacy of their bedroom? You've said you don't want stories with strong sexual overtones being read (or explained) to children. Again, I think we agree more than not here.

7 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

I have an answer. We all have an answer. It's just that the state is being dishonest (through refusing to comment) about that answer. The point is not that there aren't queer-friendly places and institutions in Florida; it's that the state used to allow them to be highlighted in one spot on the web because INTERESTED PEOPLE WANTED THAT INFORMATION. Note that you can still go on the site and pull up lists of outdoor and adventure places to go; you can still go on the site and pull up major shopping destinations; you can still go on the site and pull up listings of arts and cultural destinations. There's even still (for the moment) a link where you can go research African-American heritage travel locations. But not a list of LGBT places. Gee, I wonder why that could be, especially given that the places who were listed there said it helped bring in tourist business for their locations? 

Pretending that "we just can't know" what this means or "the bill doesn't actually SAY 'don't say gay' in the text" is just wildly irresponsible. We absolutely know. And it's absolutely going to have that effect. 

I don't have an answer beyond all reasonable doubt about the intent, though we can all infer and use our imagination. "I don't have an answer" means that I don't have firsthand knowledge of that, neither do any of us here other than speculation. If I were to speculate, I'd provide the same speculation. But again, 'I don't know' means that I don't have the absolute answer on why. All we can do from our vantage point is 'speculate'. 

My point in all of this was not to be incendiary in a topic by presenting the text of a bill and citing that it did not use the words cited. That's all I did. But knowledge means that I have an absolute and firsthand experience through a direct answer from the bill's author(s). All we can actually do is speculate. So while in your view it's "wildly irresponsible" to not cite an absolute that doesn't exist, it's completely irresponsible to state an absolute out of a speculation.

"I think BootmanLA committed the (insert offense of your choice) because...well, he's just that type of guy and he has a reputation for sometimes being combative."
That would be irresponsible because I don't have the evidence to prove that assertion nor do I have anything other than circumstantial items to impose into the situation. Just my own speculation, which is the result of my personal views, judgments, and any personal biases based on my experience. Do I "know" for certain? Nope. Can I speculate with some fairly reasonable certainty? Sure. But again, I wasn't there, didn't witness, have no evidence, have no means, and have a motive that comes out of personal perception.

I'm not disputing your points -- you make great ones. You're probably right, but neither of us can prove our case.  Have a great night.

[NEDenver]

If anyone doesn’t understand the intent, ask any of us who are stuck in families that are 90%+ Republican.  I went to dinner with these people every week for years, went on camping trips for a week at a time.  They still drop the “N” word any time they think they’re in safe company.  They complain about Mexicans stealing their jobs.  They wanted my then boyfriend of 2 years and I to sleep in different rooms during a family reunion so the children wouldn’t get confused.  Still think gay people shouldn’t get married, definitely shouldn’t adopt, and probably should have the state take any kids from previous relationships for their protection.

I know the intent.  Despite your protests, you almost definitely do, too.  They’re shitty, awful people, and Jesus hates them.  But, yeah, let’s pretend after decades of them telling us exactly what they think that it’s just all inscrutable.

[BootmanLA]

18 hours ago, SomewhereonNeptune said:

I don't have kids, so I don't really give a fuck either way. In my view, it's up to involved parents discussing in school board meetings, hopefully without weaponizing law enforcement against parents for expressing concerns.

Here's the thing, though: if you gave a fuck about the gay kids stuck in those schools, you might not want to leave everything up to parents, the loudest and most demanding of whom (and who will end up controlling the narrative and the response) will be the anti-gay bigots. 

18 hours ago, SomewhereonNeptune said:

And there are age appropriate ways of introducing a same-sex marriage to say an 8 year old child. What has made its way into classrooms are non-age appropriate texts that discuss the mechanics of masturbation or gay sex specifically in a school library where any pre-teen could access them.

The problem is that for these people - and I've been watching them closely for decades - ANY mention of same-sex relationships is "pushing a gay agenda" that needs to be excised from public schools, even when conveying the exact same information about straight relationships gathers no objection. We know this because they've tipped their hands repeatedly, and we know that because they wrote the laws, that's how they intend to use them. Again, 35+ years of watching people interested in legislation pushing said legislation tells me what I need to know about this effort. My perspective - if I may be so bold - is akin to an expert witness in a trial testifying about a subject he is intimately familiar with from long experience. Dismissing that as just, well, "my perspective" is your prerogative, but it doesn't mean I'm going to agree with you.

19 hours ago, SomewhereonNeptune said:

I'm fine with the premise. And I think we agree there is an age-appropriate way of explaining this to say a 6-8 year old. What you're inferring was not specifically indicated by the bill. Mr. Jones gets married to Mr. Smith and becomes Mr. Jones-Smith. You can explain that to a child. Should we be explaining what they do in the privacy of their bedroom? You've said you don't want stories with strong sexual overtones being read (or explained) to children. Again, I think we agree more than not here.

Except that teachers are ALREADY being forced to stay silent about same-sex partners and same-sex relationships, in a way that teachers in opposite-sex relationships are not. The fact that you seem to think the religious anti-gay zealots are acting in good faith to just keep the porn out of the libraries would be cute if it weren't shockingly naive. For fuck's sake, look at the books that are being pulled out of libraries - they're not porn, they're not masturbation manuals, they're not how-to guides for anal sex. They're bland things like Heather Has Two Mommies.

19 hours ago, SomewhereonNeptune said:

I don't have an answer beyond all reasonable doubt about the intent, though we can all infer and use our imagination. "I don't have an answer" means that I don't have firsthand knowledge of that, neither do any of us here other than speculation. If I were to speculate, I'd provide the same speculation. But again, 'I don't know' means that I don't have the absolute answer on why. All we can do from our vantage point is 'speculate'. 

and

"I think BootmanLA committed the (insert offense of your choice) because...well, he's just that type of guy and he has a reputation for sometimes being combative."

"Beyond all reasonable doubt" is the standard of proof in criminal cases and criminal offenses, like the "offense of your choice" wording. For civil cases - and the consequences of this law are civil, so that's the right standard - the standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence", also sometimes called "more likely than not". It's certainly more likely than not that the religious bigots who pushed these laws through intended to remove as many references to gay people from public schools as possible on the grounds that it's "inappropriate". Because that's what they are DOING wherever that kind of law is going into effect. 

And I've never - EVER - had one of those activists pushing those laws point to ANY reference to LGBT people that they thought was appropriate for kids in public schools. I've pressed them to give me just one example, and they never have been able to. So frankly, I don't need "beyond a reasonable doubt" kind of proof, which we almost never have in resolving any dispute.

[Rillion]

On 8/25/2024 at 6:12 PM, SomewhereonNeptune said:

So I don't disagree that there is a 'rightward' shift in policies on the State level in Florida, and I agree that DeSantis embroiled himself in areas in which he shouldn't have (the Disney action, for one). But I need to point out the following in the above with HR Bill #1557: Parental Rights in Education. (see link) Nowhere in the text of that bill is it written "Don't say gay". And yes, I've read it.  

The actual legislation stipulates that parents must be disclosed on topics that are suggested for classroom instruction, and that any instruction must be "age-appropriate". I would think that with the backlash against child predation that the LGBTQIA2S++ community would be all for supporting age appropriate instruction and not subjecting kids who are say 8 years old from inappropriate instruction about rather adult topics. Ok, Drag Queen Story Hour is one thing, but reading that has strong sexual overtones being put in libraries and assigned as mandatory might be a bridge too far. Ultimately, parents should be the decision-makers for how they want their children reared (no pun intended). Before they're educated on sexuality that isn't age-appropriate, should they be taught about adult topics that have not included sexual and reproductive functions? That's the thrust of the law. It doesn't state that you "cannot say gay", but that any discussion of sexuality must be appropriate for children at a young age. Not here to debate this topic but rather to provide the link to the actual legal text to dispel any misinformation. 

I wish I had an answer on "why" Florida removed LGBTQIA2S++ references from the state's websites, and sorry that the community seems upset over their perceived marginalization. That doesn't speak for the entire state, however. St. Pete is by far a very gay/queer friendly city, as is Lauderdale, Miami, Orlando, and even the Keys. There are definitely hoteliers who cater to the LGBTQ community and we have at least 2 campgrounds that are absolutely gay-friendly and queer-focused. I suspect you'll see changes come in '24 and '26 based on Rick Scott being vulnerable in his Senate seat and DeSantis helping to swing the pendulum back to center at the next gubernatorial election. My county has endured several DeSantis appointees in the past couple years and they've been an unmitigated disaster. We voted all of them except one in the recent primaries, so people are waking up to what he represents: Political cronyism of the highest order.

 

Do you have any evidence that classroom instruction was inappropriate before the parental rights bill was passed?

[BootmanLA]

On 8/28/2024 at 1:08 AM, Rillion said:

Do you have any evidence that classroom instruction was inappropriate before the parental rights bill was passed?

This is important. The legislature (at the behest of the governor) changed the law. Why? Was it in response to an actual problem, or was it (as I contend) simply doing the bidding of far-right activists in exchange for their electoral support?