Would any mention or depiction of a relationship be considered inappropriate then? I am not disagreeing with you, however, I do believe sexual orientation can be brought up in an age-appropriate way that does not allude to sexual activities. Certainly, heterosexual relationships have been introduced to those ages for many years without much (if at all) pushback. The depiction of "mother" or "father" as well as "husband" or "wife" would also allude to sexual orientation, no?
I see both sides of the issue. I think gender identity - whether a child sees themselves as female or male - should be a discussion left to parents. The bill as I understand it was not even intended to prevent a child from discussing this topic directly with teachers - it was intended to prevent it from being part of the planned curriculum. If that is indeed the intent of the bill, then I agree with it. If it's not written that way (which I understand it's not), then I understand why people are upset.
In either case, IT'S NONE OF DISNEY'S BUSINESS. Disney is not running a school system. There is not a RC school district that is impacted by this. The law does not impact what Disney may or may not do inside their parks or their resorts, or even their cruise ships. The law does not impact what kinds of movies Disney may choose to create or stories they tell. The law does not dictate what actors they can hire, or how much they must pay them. This is a politically charged issue - no matter which side you take you are going to piss off 50% of your base (or in the case of Chapek - somehow you managed to anger BOTH sides without making anyone happy.... that's a unique skills that I am not sure most of us possess). Quite frankly - Disney as a corporate entity should stay out of it.
As a school nurse, it's a part of my job to discuss it with grade 5-6 student (puberty and body changes) I guess things are different in Canada
AS I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT (and I am not a lawyer), this is not prevented by the law. It was intended to prevent PLANNED CURRICULUM. Not ad hoc discussion with a school nurse. It is not only valid for a nurse to be able to have these discussions, but critical for the safety of the child in some rare cases.
Let's think about it: Will Disney ever be able to go back to being neutral in societal issues? Will they double down? And if they do there's only one thing that happens, whether you support their outspokenness or are against it, the company will very likely alienate many current and future customers. I hate to break it to everyone that thinks the country is filled with mostly people who think as they do but it's very much closer to 50/50 +/- maybe 5-8%? (The numbers are just my guess but it's not that far off) As a shareholder I am very disappointed that they are becoming a political entity. I've mentioned if they wanted to be more inclusive of course that's good and their prerogative but to act like a teen on Twitter is such a bad look for the company in my opinion. There's a difference between caring and believing in your values, and making a spectacle of it. Unless Disney has a particular end game in sight and this is all part of the plan, but right now I don't see what that necessarily could be.
100% this. Chapek made a HUGE mistake. There is no way out of this one. NO WAY. He angered both sides (which is impressive). But no matter what he says now, he's going to only make it worse. If he tries to appease the conservative half of the country and make some retraction, he will anger the liberal half. If he tried to double down on the liberal half, he's going to face some serious push back from the conservative half. If he stays quiet, he's going to keep them both angry. He has put himself into a no-win situation. This is why a business should not be involved in politics. There is NO RIGHT ANSWER. Anything you do is going to be bad. He's somehow managed to make it the worst case scenario.
What Disney does in the parks - if they support one group or another or tell one kind of a story or another - that's fine. They can do that, and for the most part they can get away with it and any pushback will generally blow over. But this is bad business for the company and there is absolutely no way that this turns into a win for the company. As a shareholder, I am freaked out. As a Disney fan, I am disappointed.
Disney for me was an innocent blend of nostalgia for the past and an optimistic view of what technology will provide for the future. My view is that along with most everything else in society these features that I enjoyed have been subjugated to politics.
This is a critical issue IMHO. Disney has always been a "bubble" which as a destination people go to to FORGET ABOUT THE OUTSIDE WORLD. I.E. when you are in Disney, all that bad stuff in the world in general is to go away. Disney involving itself and bringing politics into the parks is BAD, BAD, BAD. They are bursting the bubble in several ways - and no good comes of that. Disney should be a safe place where you go to not deal with these things.
So I guess Encanto was a serious No No for you and your children with its (Disney's) attacks on family? Or is it Turning Red that will destroy the nuclear family... What other Disney 'content' has come out recently that will change the nuclear family as we know it...
I don't see that this makes any difference. What stories Disney chooses to tell are up to the company. That is a choice the company can AND SHOULD make. If Disney wants to change the world, doing so by telling stories is THE RIGHT WAY for them to do it. I have zero issues with them choosing to tell a story. It's then the parents choice to decide IF they want their child to see that story. That is what being a parent is.
Laws that do not affect Disney's business are not the companies purgative. Part of Disney is a news organization, and so that branch of the company is obligated to report on the news including such laws. Opinionated articles from commentators and content creators are the correct venue for Disney to take a stance on such laws. Free speech even enables them to talk about if they choose. If Bob wants to sit on an interview and express his personal opinion that he doesn't like the law, that's his business and he can do that.
But targeting company resources against a law that doesn't affect the company in courts and papers and official releases is bad business. They can involve themselves indirectly by choosing to make content that challenges the law through story telling. They have some very imaginative people working there. Make a movie that shows why the law is wrong. Let parents then decide if they want their children to see that movie. That is the proper response.
But Disney is not an elected entity and has no business in politics.
