Jump to content
IGNORED

Disney's LGBT Agenda "Forces" Family Trip Cancellation


ariel9

Recommended Posts

I hope that I am posting in the correct forum. This is something so ludicrous I could not resist the opportunity to discuss it here. Upon going on the site, you see a woman dressed in your typical fundie uniform at Walt Disney World with her children. In the article, she went on to express how much her daughter loves Disney and could not wait to visit again after her last trip. Her daughter also dresses as a Disney character each day and is very excited about the live action Beauty and the Beast. The family had planned a $6,000 trip to the Orlando park this year and put the reservation on a 3 day hold. Well she just knew it was God telling her to put the reservation on a 3 day hold because not too long after it was announced that Lefou is going to an  openly gay character. Seeing this as a sign of fate she cancelled  the trip. Check out the article her logic is pretty out there......

http://www.thismodestmom.com/boycott-disney/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It seems like the one good thing about 2017 is that most bigots are pretty openly identifying themselves.  It's fucky that we still have to deal with bigotry, this far along in time, but here we are.  At least this woman will stay home with her hatred and anger, rather than judging families with two moms or two dads or whatever at Disneyworld.  

I have to admit that I'm stunned by her writing.  So very judgmental, and yet no time to check grammar?  And how many sentence fragments did she begin with "which"?  At a certain point, that indicates a lack of knowledge of grammar, rather than a stylistic choice.

 Here's one sad paragraph that started to make my eyes twitch: 

"Disney isn’t just aiming their efforts towards parent’s [sic] of Disney-aged children anymore. They are pointing a desperate finger at the innocence of our youth. Disney is targeting our youth like they’re aiming at big game on a corporate hunting trip. They are banking on corrupting the purity of a child’s mind for the 1%. They are no longer making watching a choice [really? how?  I've avoided Disney for years, by choice], but by forcing it [what is "it"?] to become mainstream, Disney is telling the conservative family, the Christian public, that they’re [sic] views hold no worth. In jest, they’re subtly encouraging you to conform your ways. [wait, which way? Your way? That's not okay?] (Mark 13:22)"*

I wonder what 1% she is referencing here.  I can't imagine she's angry at the wealthy who hoard their money abroad, avoiding taxes, and I'd gladly bet a dollar that she voted for Angry Agent Orange. LBGTQIA+ people comprise more than 1% of the population.  What straw man is she inventing?  

*Pedantic and bitchy bracketed comments all mine. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look forward to someone putting a gun to this woman's head, taking her wallet and marching her into a movie theater. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, amandaaries said:

"In jest, they’re subtly encouraging you to conform your ways. [wait, which way? Your way? That's not okay?] (Mark 13:22)"

Ah, perhaps she means that "they're subtly encouraging you to conform your ways" to their nefarious, evil purposes...?  I'm sure it's my sinful nature that's preventing me from understanding her meaning here. :devilish:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like she got a lot of hate mail and backlash for her hateful post, and she's shutting things down.  Gonna go ahead and preserve the post for posterity here (sorry, the Wayback Machine's ways elude me).  I will add that her habit of beginning sentences with "which" is a consistent facet of her writing -- a few times is okay, but this woman needs the grammar police.  

What's fantastic about her next post, the horrors of hate mail when one is peddling hate, is how she compares herself to Jesus, who was also persecuted. Then she backs away, saying she isn't even worth the dust on his shoes (thought they were sandals?).  She goes on at length about her persecution as a Christian, and how she hopes that others don't judge her.  Another post she had mentioned how tired she was of people judging others...days before she blogs about Disney and their evil Gay Agenda.  But without judgment, of course!  Just that Christ calls on Christians to rebuke sinners, that's all she was doing.  No judgment, no hatred, no irrational fear of the LGBTQIA+ folks out there -- just Biblical law, that's all!  Bless her small and hateful heart. 

Glad her logic is consistent and sound.  

Spoiler

Disney is obviously a pretty magical place. I mean, despite all the things I said about our first Disney vacation last year, I admitted here that we’d be going back this year. Unfortunately I’m eating my words, because as of now, we won’t be going to Disney this year and I’ve got a pretty sad little girl on my hands.

I called Disney to book our vacation on the same day that the director, and some of the cast, of the live action version “Beauty and the Beast” announced that the movie would have an ‘exclusively gay moment’. What are the odds? Fortunately, I had asked the cast member to place our reservation on a 3 day hold to confirm details with the other members of our group. Which means I didn’t even have to call and cancel.

You should also know that we’ve been waiting for the live action “Beauty and the Beast” for months. If you follow me on Instagram, then you know that I have a princess obsessed little girl on my hands. She is a Disney character every day, and literally talks about last years trip every single day. As I’m typing this, she’s sitting on the sofa in her Belle dress. However, our plans to see the live action “Beauty and the Beast” as a family were brought to a screeching halt when we found out the news that Lefou had ‘feelings’ for Gaston in the new movie.

So, if you’re following me, we’ve officially come to the conclusion that we won’t be seeing the live action version of “Beauty and the Beast” and we’ve cancelled our $6000 Disney World Vacation.

I know what you’re thinking, if you boycott all the things that support an agenda you don’t agree with, you’d have nothing. So let’s be clear, I’m not going to boycott Disney because they support something I don’t. Despite their unofficial “Gay Days” that have gone on since the 90’s(?). I know that Disney aired a lesbian couple on the popular television show Good Luck Charlie in 2014. I know that the LGBT community pleaded for Elsa to make the ‘turn’ too. But we went to Disney just last year.

The difference? We made the choice to not watch Good Luck Charlie. I won’t visit Disney during gay-week. And if Elsa were to make an ‘announcement’ we would no longer be Frozen fans either.

There comes a point where you have to take a stand for the things you believe in, this is my stand.

If we’re being honest, there’s a lot of things we’ve stopped doing. We don’t even bother with rated R movies, because I hate the language, and the near pornographic scenes. I’ve walked out, or turned off, many PG-13 movies for the same reason. I refuse to use the regular bathrooms at Target and if the family room has a line, then we leave. Some of the most popular shows (Scandal, How to Get Away with Murder, Quantico, This Is Us, Greys Anatomy, The Good Wife, etc.), most of which air on ABC, a Disney owned network, I quit watching them all when they revealed exclusively LGBT characters. We cut our cable years ago because we refused to pay for things we weren’t able to watch. Even the commercials make me cringe. Which is what brings me to my next point.

I’m not paying for simple entertainment that doesn’t accurately align with my personal beliefs.

Furthermore, since the news about “Beauty and the Beast” has come out- no pun intended- Disney is having to answer more and more for their LGBT agenda. You’ll see that the Disney XD show “Star v.s. the Forces of Evil” aired an episode this year where the lead characters are surrounded by others who take to kissing their neighbor during a boy band concert, many of which are the same sexual orientation. This move made Disney’s first LGBT moment in a kids animation. Last fall, the creators of “Moana” mentioned in an interview with a liberal media source that they wouldn’t rule out an LGBT Disney princess. Director Ron Clements said, “It seems like the possibilities are pretty open at this point.” WHAT?!

Disney isn’t just aiming their efforts towards parent’s of Disney-aged children anymore. They are pointing a desperate finger at the innocence of our youth. Disney is targeting our youth like they’re aiming at big game on a corporate hunting trip. They are banking on corrupting the purity of a child’s mind for the 1%. They are no longer making watching a choice, but by forcing it to become mainstream, Disney is telling the conservative family, the Christian public, that they’re views hold no worth. In jest, they’re subtly encouraging you to conform your ways.(Mark 13:22)

At this point, Disney is proudly looming over your morals and values and eerily cackling like a villain in one of their own classic fairy tales.

So why can’t I just boycott the live action “Beauty and the Beast” and still go to Disney World? Well, the fact of the matter is that if Disney is so boldly including it in their movies and television shows, then soon they’ll have to follow suit and include it in their skits and park rides. Who’s to say that an adapted theater version of “Beauty and the Beast” won’t be shown in Hollywood Studios this year? Mark my words, I won’t be ‘entertained’ by something that doesn’t align with my religious beliefs. Which definitely means I won’t pay for it.

Next Disney will be talking about teen sex and abortions in efforts to normalize these issues to children as well- I guess you can pretty much tell that I’m pro-life and believe that sex isn’t appropriate outside of marriage. It really shouldn’t be surprising.

If you feel like me, maybe you’ll want to take a stand too. I encourage you to sign this petition asking that Disney reconsider their position. Boycott Disney and let them know that your values, morals, and beliefs mean something too. You can also sign OneMillionMoms.com petition here.

Let’s let our children be children. Don’t include them in your efforts to create a politically correct stance.

Note: If Disney reconsidered their stance, I would be first in line to reschedule our Disney Vacation!

So, in place of our family’s Disney Vacation, we’ve decided to head back to Branson, Missouri! Branson is our family’s favorite vacation spot! Check back for more about planning our family vacation to Branson, MO.

Let us know your thoughts about Disney’s LGBT agenda and tell us if you signed the petition!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty amused that she apparently didn't notice that the character had some pretty gay moments in the animated film as well. I bet that she would not have noticed a thing in the live action movie if she just watched it with no 'warning,' lol. 

Also, equating Jesus to coffee helping her get by seems rather blasphemous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her entire complain seems to boil down to "I'm not being treated as the default anymore!" Welcome to everyone else's reality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few things:

Why can't she just take accountability for the choice she and her husband made? They chose to cancel their vacation. No one told them they weren't allowed to go. They are the ones responsible for their daughter's disappointment, not Disney. If they really feel like they have to take a big moral stand, they should just own it like adults rather than whining about it.

The post in general is an awful lot of bloviating for what boils down to simply "We were going to go on vacation but changed our minds."

How the hell do they have $6,000 of disposable income to blow on a vacation? :pb_eek:  And why does she have to brag about it every few paragraphs? Yes, she's wealthy, she made that point already and we got it!

Her blog title, ugh. Here's a tip: If you're calling attention to yourself for how modest you are, you aren't modest. Just because you're covering all your skin doesn't mean you're not trying to get everyone to look at you, which she is - and which isn't modest at all.

This makes me happy that I'm going to Disney World for the first time this summer! :) (Not that I'll have $6,000 to throw around. :pb_rollseyes: But still.)

That said, I too am disappointed about Lefou, but for very different reasons. I really wish that the first openly gay Disney character would be a noble, heroic, or at least kind and humane one. It wouldn't even have to be a huge role, but just someone that kids would see as a positive character they could relate to. I wish it wasn't a comic semi-villain who basically exists to be laughed at. The inclusion of a gay character at all is progress of a sort, but it falls far short of what I would like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always like it when people's bigotry harms no one but themselves.  Absolutely no one lost anything in this but the bigots. In fact, everyone else probably benefited because now no one has to deal with them on THEIR vacation. 5 stars, lovely ending.

27 minutes ago, Mercer said:

 

That said, I too am disappointed about Lefou, but for very different reasons. I really wish that the first openly gay Disney character would be a noble, heroic, or at least kind and humane one. It wouldn't even have to be a huge role, but just someone that kids would see as a positive character they could relate to. I wish it wasn't a comic semi-villain who basically exists to be laughed at. The inclusion of a gay character at all is progress of a sort, but it falls far short of what I would like.

I feel you, but I also think that this might be asking a little much. 

LeFou makes sense.  Homosexuality is true to his characterization, and actually makes MORE sense with his behavior than having him characterized as straight. B&B was in production (a process that takes years), and the decision to comment on his sexuality is one Disney could make relatively late down the line. Plus, outside of people who really just hate anything gay, there's not a lot of opposition to this.  Like I said, it makes TONS of sense to expand LeFou's character this way, which is not something I can say about any other Disney character.

To have a gay hero, you really would need to write an ENTIRELY new work.  Which is fine, but that would have needed to be started ages ago to come out now (some projects take decades even), and the social climate really wasn't there until recently. 

So feasibly, Disney's options were: gay character who is a secondary (though sympathetic and mild) antagonist or wait possibly decades for the right project to come to fruition where a gay character can be a hero. I think I agree with their decision because kids need this NOW and this is guaranteed to be a major film (and Disney villains are getting a lot of love lately anyway). 

Really, the only upcoming project I can think of that could mayyyybe have a gay couple on the "good" side is Lion King with Timon and Pumba.  And I think it wise that Disney avoid that inter species can of worms for their first gay character, especially with the whole Simba....yeah, no that gets creepy fast. 

Basically, I don't think there are a lot of opportunities for non-heterosexual characters in the existing Disney catalog. So they really had to take whatever opportunity they had, which was LeFou, and while imperfect, they took it. 

Plus now they can add his kid to Descendents Eleventy or whatever number they're on. Kids are really into that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm just not seeing why it's simply impossible for, say, Cogsworth to be gay? He and Lumiere have a huge amount of chemistry. Or Mrs. Potts? She could easily be seen with another teapot in the china cupboard putting the kids to bed. And so on.

Most named characters in Beauty and the Beast (as is true for most Disney films) don't actually express any sort of romantic preference. Characters who don't have a stated sexuality don't have to automatically be assumed to be straight...  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mercer said:

I guess I'm just not seeing why it's simply impossible for, say, Cogsworth to be gay? He and Lumiere have a huge amount of chemistry. Or Mrs. Potts? She could easily be seen with another teapot in the china cupboard putting the kids to bed. And so on.

Most named characters in Beauty and the Beast (as is true for most Disney films) don't actually express any sort of romantic preference. Characters who don't have a stated sexuality don't have to automatically be assumed to be straight...  

I thought that David Ogden Stiers, who voiced Cogsworth, the 1991 film had come out a few years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mercer said:

I guess I'm just not seeing why it's simply impossible for, say, Cogsworth to be gay? He and Lumiere have a huge amount of chemistry. Or Mrs. Potts? She could easily be seen with another teapot in the china cupboard putting the kids to bed. And so on.

Most named characters in Beauty and the Beast (as is true for most Disney films) don't actually express any sort of romantic preference. Characters who don't have a stated sexuality don't have to automatically be assumed to be straight...  

I like to call this "The Dumbledore".  The character is "gay", but we only know that because the author has assigned him/her the label outside of the work.  Nothing about the character within the work itself really comments on this one way or another. 

Personally, I feel this is a cop out. It's a way to have a "token gay character" and give lip service to inclusion without actually including a character that is demonstrably gay and that might challenge people. 

But LeFou is gay.  His homosexuality is not an afterthought or a note in an interview.  It's a central motivating factor for his character, something he struggles with, and something that is a major part of understanding himself....just like sexuality actually is for people in the real world. 

And sure, you could assign the same tensions to Cogsworth (Lumiere hits on women/feather dusters, Mrs. Potts has like eleventy children and that might be a bit much for a family film), but it would be a Dumbledore.  Because Cogsworth is categorized by his loyalty to his master, his love of the castle, etc. He is almost never motivated by his emotions towards Lumiere, positive or negative, but rather his ideas on the above. 

And sure, you could make the stove or the footstool or the weird spider carriage gay, but again, that's just giving them a label as a cop out and the audience will be fully free to ignore it because it has no relevance to the story. 

But with LeFou, we cannot ignore it if we want to understand his character and his actions. It's more than a label, it's a real part of the narrative. 

LeFou does EVERYTHING for Gaston the person.  He's loyal to him even though Gaston treats him terribly.  Why? Well now we know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so LeFou is gay. Does the movie show him having sweet gay sex with Gaston, or the guy in the next bathroom stall or anyone? If not, if he's just gay, but there's no gay sex, whatever happened to the fundie "hate the sin but love the sinner"? Or the often stated "It's okay to have an attraction to a member of the same sex, it's just not okay to act on that attraction because, ewwwww."

For that matter why don't the fundies have a problem with the whole notion of a woman/buffalo relationship?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Georgiana said:

I like to call this "The Dumbledore".  The character is "gay", but we only know that because the author has assigned him/her the label outside of the work.  Nothing about the character within the work itself really comments on this one way or another. 

Personally, I feel this is a cop out. It's a way to have a "token gay character" and give lip service to inclusion without actually including a character that is demonstrably gay and that might challenge people. 

I think that fundamentally we're imagining differently how this would work. I'm assuming that this isn't going to be just a shot-for-shot remake and there's room to (at least a small degree) flesh out and expand. If that's not the case, then you're right - it shouldn't be external to the work. But to be blunt, it's not like any Disney characters are wildly complex in their personalities and motivations so there's some wiggle room with changing and adding to them.

That's what the examples I gave were - Cogsworth and Lumiere riding off into the sunset together after an hour and a half of banter doesn't have to be purely platonic, Ms. Potts could have a slightly more detailed home life, etc. Not just "Oh, yes, he/she is gay" but we never see it. :)

Lefou has actually never read as specifically gay for me. (I would consider his sexual orientation unknown.) He reads for me as the nerdy kid who tags along with the cool kids and imagines that if he's enough of a yes-man and does everything they want, they'll eventually accept him as their own and he'll be popular too, not realizing that they have no intention of doing so and they laugh at him behind his back. I've never known a gay person to be quite that enthusiastic about seeing their love interest heterosexually married off to someone else.

Not saying I'm right and you're wrong. :) It's equally valid to see him as acting sacrificially out of true love. That's just never the way I've seen it... and I would have said Cogsworth/Lumiere was basically canon, so different strokes. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought of this right away....

LWHDME.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Mercer said:

I'm disappointed about Lefou, but for very different reasons. I really wish that the first openly gay Disney character would be a noble, heroic, or at least kind and humane one. It wouldn't even have to be a huge role, but just someone that kids would see as a positive character they could relate to. I wish it wasn't a comic semi-villain who basically exists to be laughed at. The inclusion of a gay character at all is progress of a sort, but it falls far short of what I would like.

Apparently, the concerns about stereotypes are fairly accurate. Also "exclusive gay moment" is heavily overblown. So I'd say "modest mom" is worrying about a moment she would have never noticed without the hype.

Breakdown of "the moment:" https://www.popsugar.com/entertainment/What-Gay-Moment-Beauty-Beast-43273015

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Georgiana said:

I like to call this "The Dumbledore".  The character is "gay", but we only know that because the author has assigned him/her the label outside of the work.  Nothing about the character within the work itself really comments on this one way or another. 

Personally, I feel this is a cop out. It's a way to have a "token gay character" and give lip service to inclusion without actually including a character that is demonstrably gay and that might challenge people. 

1

But there is no reason for Harry to know that Dumbledore is gay. It's none of his business. Just like we don't know anything about McGonnagall's sex life, Flitwick's, Snape's (beyond the Lily obsession), Sirius's, Firenze's, Trewlawney's, etc.  Harry is a student. How many teachers did you have that expressed their sexual orientation to you? I knew about one; maybe two, and one of them I was told to never tell anyone because she was a family friend and the school didn't know. 

I don't even know what demonstrably gay is in the context of a children's book series. Should Dumbledore have talked to Harry at length about his feelings? Why shoehorn in sexual stuff in a book that doesn't have much? Granted, she shoehorned in that ridiculous epilogue, I suppose there could have been a student or two that just expressed interest in the same sex. But then again, Harry is an amazingly self-centered individual. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic made me register.  I think it's problematic to make assumptions about sexuality when there's no evidence either way.  LeFou drooled big-time  over the town "silly girls" are the water faucet and needed the proverbial cold shower, which he got then the faucet went off on him.  That's evidence for him being straight.  Also being a bad-guy's lackey doesn't mean someone is gay.  He's a dorky character who gets some respect for being the Big Bad Guy's sidekick.  He exists to stroke Gaston's ego and to sing a song about how every guy in town wants to be Gaston, even when taking his lumps.

There are a lot of ways to make characters whose sexualities are blank slates, which is most of them, gay characters who we could cheer for.  This time, "the fool" has fallen for the guy who abuses him.  We can't cheer for him because we shouldn't want a person to end up in an abusive relationship.  So we have to hope he gets his heart broken so he doesn't end up with his abuser.  There's no way there can be a happy ending for "the fool."  If he doesn't get with Gaston, he'll have to deal with the pain of betrayal and loss.  Nothing about this is a positive.  It's a net-negative portrayal of a gay character.  Yes, it happens in real life, but shouldn't we want our first big-screen Disney gay character to be someone that gay kids could rally around and want to be like?  We've had black characters in Disney movies before, but Tiana and Tip were big because kids finally had their own positive heros they could identify with and get to want to be like.  The same goes for gay kids.  They need a positive representation on the screen, and they aren't getting that with LeFou.  The gay character is the bumbling sidekick who falls in love with the guy who hurts him.

I think it would be better to wait for a gay character we an all be happy for than to shoehorn him into a movie that is already so full of other social issues that the filmmakers decided to shove in there than to do it wrong.  Disney really did it wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think she's not only pissed that a cartoon character won't remain closeted, but that there isn't a damn thing she can do about it.  "Pray the gay away" won't help, nor will bathroom legislation, or anti-gay marriage laws.  And I highly doubt that Disney cares if she and her ilk decide to vacation elsewhere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is she in any way persecuted in this situation?  Disney didn't ban her from the park.  She decided on her own not to vacation there.  And just because Disney made a film you disagree with does not mean they are persecuting you.  They've made numerous films I disagree with and I don't whine about persecution because there is none.  Grow up lady and quit bitching about nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Childless said:

How is she in any way persecuted in this situation?  Disney didn't ban her from the park.  She decided on her own not to vacation there.  And just because Disney made a film you disagree with does not mean they are persecuting you.  They've made numerous films I disagree with and I don't whine about persecution because there is none.  Grow up lady and quit bitching about nothing.

Exactly. Well said. They probably needed the money for something else, realised that they couldn't really afford such an expensive trip, read the reports and leapt onto the gay character news as a 'legitimate' reason to cancel the holiday. 

I feel sorry for their daughter, having that twit for a mother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let children be children, I think she posted.

Well, as Assistant Secretary of THE GAY AGENDA I don't remember any discussion about barring her daughter from Disney premises, covering the entire theme park in SPARKLE GLITTER in an attempt to spread THE GAY, or forcing her to give up her vacation.

So in reality, whose stopping who from being children? It certainly seems like it's the uptight fundie whose beliefs matter more than her daughter - to the point where she's happy to post cute photos of her daughter to elicit sympathy for her family and anger toward Disney and those of THE GAY AGENDA

And don't even get me started on the hate mail post ... tears and heavy heart my arse ...

So enjoy Branson and the stick up your butt ... Your kid will one day realise that the reason she didn't go to Disney is because of your raging insecurities. It certainly has nothing to do with the (more that 1%) of the delightful group who make up THE GAY AGENDA. (and who can spell).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.