Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, what I'm saying is that I'm not going to take a random internet guy's opinion as fact. Imagine if we were to do that with everything someone says on this forum? Do you know what crazy "facts" we'd be forced to accept as true?
Is Disney allowing conspicuous displays of a sexual nature? That is the question we're trying to answer. So far,you haven't provided any evidence showing this to be true. The only photographic "evidence" I've seen thus far could have been taken literally anywhere in the past 10 years.
Get my point?
Yes, I get your point. Your point is that we should err on the side of caution to protect gays "rights" to expose children to lewd sexuality in a theme park geared for children. My point is that the law requires us instead to take that internet report as serious and err on the side of caution protecting children instead.
You are on the wrong side of the law with your "picking and choosing" what to believe or not. The law requires that even if we just have reason to suspect or an indication that something may harm children, we are required to report that indication, even if unsubstantiated, to authorities. If not, we can be prosecuted.
To be on the proper side of the law, you must take that internet account at face value and assume that its author knew full well he was risking legal action to paint Disney out in such a fashion, as compliant with exposing children to lewd sexuality. ie: he has nothing to gain and everything to lose by advertising those statements on the internet if they are not factual observations he's made.
And he wrote them anyway. And they stand to this day. The law requires therefore that we take him seriously and protect children.
Hey I'm not saying the guy is a fake, or that he's a liar. He may be 100% genuinely sincere in everything he says. However, there's absolutely no way of verifying his testimony.
I've done some independent research, using only well known sites, and all I can find are pictures of people walking around in red shirts. That's it. No news stories, nothing. If there were indeed rampant drug use, sex, etc, wouldn't Fox news - at the very least - have covered it yet?
Again, you can do what you like, however I personally don't take one random unverified written account of a random dude on the internet as "FACT".
Hey I'm not saying the guy is a fake, or that he's a liar. He may be 100% genuinely sincere in everything he says. However, there's absolutely no way of verifying his testimony.
I've done some independent research, using only well known sites, and all I can find are pictures of people walking around in red shirts. That's it. No news stories, nothing. If there were indeed rampant drug use, sex, etc, wouldn't Fox news - at the very least - have covered it yet?
Again, you can do what you like, however I personally don't take one random unverified written account of a random dude on the internet as "FACT".
Thanks for being LGBT friendly.
Hey I'm not saying the guy is a fake, or that he's a liar. He may be 100% genuinely sincere in everything he says. However, there's absolutely no way of verifying his testimony.
I've done some independent research, using only well known sites, and all I can find are pictures of people walking around in red shirts. That's it. No news stories, nothing. If there were indeed rampant drug use, sex, etc, wouldn't Fox news - at the very least - have covered it yet?
Again, you can do what you like, however I personally don't take one random unverified written account of a random dude on the internet as "FACT".
But if there is even a possibility that he is telling the truth, as his insistance in spite of potentially being sued by Disney to keep that material posted indicates, the law requires you to not even have to have verification. You are supposed to act without verification if you even have an inkling that the guy might be telling the truth. See the part in bold again.
If you don't, you can be prosecuted.
Because child endangerment and abuse is such a pernicious and insidious malady in our society, the laws about it are written differently from others. They are written that person need only have a suspicion that neglect or abuse could be coming towards a child in order to be mandated to act. No conviction necessary. No hard evidence necessary. That's how the laws are written which is very different from other laws requiring proof. That's the reason so many people are confused about this Harvey Milk issue for example, and Disney. Few realize that sitting on the sidelines until the proof comes in or some lawsuit settles something or another isn't good enough. You can be prosecuted for suspecting there is harm coming to children and not doing anything about it.
So those who are speaking out against the church of LGBT doing these types of lewd displays at Disney are actually not just coming out on the right side of history, as it turns out, they are coming out on the right side of the law as well...
Hey I'm not saying the guy is a fake, or that he's a liar. He may be 100% genuinely sincere in everything he says. However, there's absolutely no way of verifying his testimony.
I've done some independent research, using only well known sites, and all I can find are pictures of people walking around in red shirts. That's it. No news stories, nothing. If there were indeed rampant drug use, sex, etc, wouldn't Fox news - at the very least - have covered it yet?
Again, you can do what you like, however I personally don't take one random unverified written account of a random dude on the internet as "FACT".
But if there is even a possibility that he is telling the truth, as his insistance in spite of potentially being sued by Disney to keep that material posted indicates, the law requires you to not even have to have verification. You are supposed to act without verification if you even have an inkling that the guy might be telling the truth. See the part in bold again.
If you don't, you can be prosecuted.
Because child endangerment and abuse is such a pernicious and insidious malady in our society, the laws about it are written differently from others. They are written that person need only have a suspicion that neglect or abuse could be coming towards a child in order to be mandated to act. No conviction necessary. No hard evidence necessary. That's how the laws are written which is very different from other laws requiring proof. That's the reason so many people are confused about this Harvey Milk issue for example, and Disney. Few realize that sitting on the sidelines until the proof comes in or some lawsuit settles something or another isn't good enough. You can be prosecuted for suspecting there is harm coming to children and not doing anything about it.
So those who are speaking out against the church of LGBT doing these types of lewd displays at Disney are actually not just coming out on the right side of history, as it turns out, they are coming out on the right side of the law as well...
Nobody is getting charged with child abuse or neglect because a couple of gay guys are kissing at Disney. You have an imagination that is not rooted in reality. People kiss there all the time. What's the difference if it is two guys, two girls or a guy and a girl doing so?
Thanks for being LGBT friendly.
Business is business and, if the pink dollar works, exploit it.
Screw discrimination; it isn't good capitalism.
Thanks for being LGBT friendly.
Business is business and, if the pink dollar works, exploit it.
Screw discrimination; it isn't good capitalism.
Nope...and when 30,000 people descend on your town at once with LOTS of disposable income...
Taste the rainbow.
But if there is even a possibility that he is telling the truth, as his insistance in spite of potentially being sued by Disney to keep that material posted indicates, the law requires you to not even have to have verification. You are supposed to act without verification if you even have an inkling that the guy might be telling the truth. See the part in bold again.
If you don't, you can be prosecuted.
Because child endangerment and abuse is such a pernicious and insidious malady in our society, the laws about it are written differently from others. They are written that person need only have a suspicion that neglect or abuse could be coming towards a child in order to be mandated to act. No conviction necessary. No hard evidence necessary. That's how the laws are written which is very different from other laws requiring proof. That's the reason so many people are confused about this Harvey Milk issue for example, and Disney. Few realize that sitting on the sidelines until the proof comes in or some lawsuit settles something or another isn't good enough. You can be prosecuted for suspecting there is harm coming to children and not doing anything about it.
So those who are speaking out against the church of LGBT doing these types of lewd displays at Disney are actually not just coming out on the right side of history, as it turns out, they are coming out on the right side of the law as well...
Nobody is getting charged with child abuse or neglect because a couple of gay guys are kissing at Disney. You have an imagination that is not rooted in reality. People kiss there all the time. What's the difference if it is two guys, two girls or a guy and a girl doing so?
Where do you draw the line? I hear the line has been crossed there. We can leave it up to a jury to decide. They'll review the laws as they are written on child protection and render a decision I suppose..
Thanks for being LGBT friendly.
Disney has been doing this for as long as i have had an annual pass. I have as yet to come across any inappropriate behavior.
You haven't seen anything like THIS YET?...
Nobody is getting charged with child abuse or neglect because a couple of gay guys are kissing at Disney. You have an imagination that is not rooted in reality. People kiss there all the time. What's the difference if it is two guys, two girls or a guy and a girl doing so?
Where do you draw the line? I hear the line has been crossed there. We can leave it up to a jury to decide. They'll review the laws as they are written on child protection and render a decision I suppose..
If there is inappropriate behavior, Disney will tell the guests to stop or force them to leave if they do not comply whether they be gay or straight. Do you only believe this only applies to gay couples?
The idea that anyone is going to be prosecuted or sued over how other people are acting in a theme park is laughable.
Here's a less reputable site - buzzfeed - however the pics clearly show people AT DISNEY and wearing gay day t-shirts. How come not a single one of your pics show a person in front of a castle, or on a ride, or with a Disney character? Lol. Again, I think you guys just had a major fail here.
You shouldn't be so gullible.
9 Things You Should Be Afraid Of At Disney's "Gay Day"
Looks like the standard is to wear a boring red t-shirt at "gay day".
Sorry but looks like you guys are wholly incorrect about the whole thing. It happens.
Business is business and, if the pink dollar works, exploit it.
Screw discrimination; it isn't good capitalism.
Nope...and when 30,000 people descend on your town at once with LOTS of disposable income...
Taste the rainbow.
At a children's theme park.. displaying lewd, sexualized behavior in front of the kids.
Which is illegal no matter how much money is made off it.
Taste the lawsuit...
Here's a less reputable site - buzzfeed - however the pics clearly show people AT DISNEY and wearing gay day t-shirts. How come not a single one of your pics show a person in front of a castle, or on a ride, or with a Disney character? Lol. Again, I think you guys just had a major fail here.
You shouldn't be so gullible.
9 Things You Should Be Afraid Of At Disney's "Gay Day"
Looks like the standard is to wear a boring red t-shirt at "gay day".
Sorry but looks like you guys are wholly incorrect about the whole thing. It happens.
You haven't got a shred of evidence to prove otherwise , besides what you want it to be - could tell you black was white and if it supported your needs you'd agree .
Why do the homosexual deviants need special days to go to Disney World? Are they not allowed the other 360 some odd days of the year? Just more pandering to special interests.
Nobody is getting charged with child abuse or neglect because a couple of gay guys are kissing at Disney. You have an imagination that is not rooted in reality. People kiss there all the time. What's the difference if it is two guys, two girls or a guy and a girl doing so?
Where do you draw the line? I hear the line has been crossed there. We can leave it up to a jury to decide. They'll review the laws as they are written on child protection and render a decision I suppose..
If there is inappropriate behavior, Disney will tell the guests to stop or force them to leave if they do not comply whether they be gay or straight. Do you only believe this only applies to gay couples?
The idea that anyone is going to be prosecuted or sued over how other people are acting in a theme park is laughable.
Gay Day at Disneyland.
Now if they'd just have Gun Day !
Gay Day at Disneyland.
Now if they'd just have Gun Day !
Why not make it the Same Day !
Actually not a bad idea - Let the FruitCakes and the RedNecks have a get together and see who makes it out of the Park in One Piece
Gay Day at Disneyland.
Now if they'd just have Gun Day !
Why not make it the Same Day !
Actually not a bad idea - Let the FruitCakes and the RedNecks have a get together and see who makes it out of the Park in One Piece
Self portrait Bean? No wonder the homoeroticism is so rampant in your posts...
^
