I've always felt a slight bit of sympathy for the Disney corporation and its pragmatic predicament when it comes to society's warring moral factions.
Of course, I know that goes against every standard operating procedure for always exerting pompous moral superiority in all public discourse these days. Corporations are ostensibly faceless organizations, and so a person can feel free to condemn them, criticize them, attack them, and accuse them of all sorts of infamy without any fear of legal or popular reprisal. Corporations are evil – that's Public Square Activism 101.
However, seriously consider Disney Corporation for just a moment. The entire company was founded as a refuge and sanctuary of family-friendly entertainment. From movies to cartoons, educational pursuits to theme parks, Walt made no secret of his intention to cater to the American family, and the traditional philosophical sensibilities that entails.
At the same time, there's no denying the reality that the artistic and creative flare associated with the company has drawn the interest and affections of LGBT individuals. While estimated percentages of the company's gay workforce vary, Disney boasts of its sterling track record of catering to LGBT workers.
Simply put, in 2022 America, that is a difficult, if not impossible, needle to thread. For all the public relations talk emanating from major gay and lesbian advocacy groups, their ongoing sexual revolution isn't demanding tolerance, but compliance. It was never really about being allowed to marry, it was ultimately about government compelling that place to host the wedding, that business to cater it, that florist to provide her services, and that baker to make the cake. Compliance and participation.
And since both sides are equally devout in their conviction that the other side is the embodiment of immorality – pro-family groups seeing the LGBT movement as decadent and debauched, LGBT groups seeing pro-family groups as judgmental and bigoted – making corporate decisions that pleased both was always going to be impossible to do.
Lest there be any confusion as to which side they picked in this cultural morality war between the millions of traditional family types who spend billions on their content each year and the significantly smaller but unquestionably more demonstrative LGBT lobby, the House of Mouse sent another unambiguous signal last week.
First, after trying to avoid weighing in heavily on the state of Florida's new law to protect young kids from being subjected to teacher and adult sexuality and gender activism in their school curriculum, the company's president Bob Chapek announced his regrets over Disney's lack of activism against the law.
Not only does Chapek adopt the dubious (and silly) moniker "Don't Say Gay" to describe the law, he takes a much larger step in announcing the corporate giant will use its monetary influence to pressure lawmakers.
Chapek is being transparent about the company's direction moving forward under his leadership. He sees the right to talk to kindergartners and first graders about drag, transgenderism, and have sexually explicit conversations in their company without parental knowledge or approval to be a matter of "equal rights" for gays, and more broadly "basic human rights."
To call such a position extreme is an understatement of epic proportions.
Meanwhile, the same day Chapek issued his jaw-dropping statement condemning the "bigotry" of millions of his company's own customers, Disney simultaneously reaffirmed its own commitment to perpetuating a different form of bigotry itself.
After refusing comment on play-by-play announcer Mark Jones' abhorrent and offensive conduct every time it occurred, Disney-owned ESPN has officially re-signed and increased his salary.
Let's be clear: Disney is not opposed to bigotry at all. They very much favor it, so long as it is directed towards targets that pop culture despises; namely, those people and interests with traditional or conservative moral ideas.
Obviously, in this environment I don't expect Chapek or Disney to invite the kind of cultural crucifixion that occurred to Chick-fil-A just a few years ago after their owner's benign salute to traditional marriage. But I have to admit to being more than a little disappointed they felt the need to shove their oversized mouse-finger in the eye of anyone wanting to pump the brakes on society's sexualization of our children.
