Because they're a company, and in the end companies want to make money.

Pandering to LGBT crowds alienates more people than it would bring in. Why would a company ever desire lowering profits?

True but would it not get them even better publicity?

He's not making a point. He should ask for some specific action that he wants.

Disney is probably top 5% in the world for that shit.

>>5671873
Disney is already universally popular. They don't need publicity, and pandering to the LGBT crowd would not necessarily be 'good' publicity -- for a lot of people, it'd actually negatively impact the image of a company already loved.

Overall it'd probably be a net loss, otherwise they would've done it already. Companies like making money m8.

>>5671874
That's not how the world works? You can't just demand things from companies. Asking them questions gives them time to reflect on it. Plus what are the chances they'll ever read this?

Because no sane parent in the world wants a company that supports faggots around their kids, they know this from their research, as does every other corporation that produces for children.

>>5671838
People should be glad entertainment companies don't mess a lot with LGBTQ, especially when it makes to making non straight characters. They always are either villains or comic reliefs. Like fat characters.

>>5671883
Didn't Campbell's Soup get shit just for having an ad feature two gay dads

Fuck that. I wouldn't want my son to turn out a perverted boygirl with a sissy fetish, like me and the guy off of the danish girl.egg

Because it's not profitable yet. Once it becomes apparent that supporting LGBT = tons of money we'll probably get some gay princes. The sooner the better, to be honest, I want to see this.

>>5671889
>That's not how the world works? You can't just demand things from companies.

Of course it does. MLK demanded that companies remove segregated seating.


>Asking them questions gives them time to reflect on it.
It's way too vauge.

Trying for a marxist struggle session is going to be beyond worthless and counterproductive.

>Plus what are the chances they'll ever read this?
None if you're lucky. A more likely reading if they do see this is "They're just bitching, and no matter what we do, they'll bitch for more next week".

>>5671838
>doesn't know about beauty and the beast
I can't take that shit seriously.
Entertainment should not become some political tool.

>>5672157
>gay princes
>not trans princesses
It's like you don't even know Disney. It'll be Cinderella but with ugly step endocrinologists.

Didn't frozen have a couple gays in it?

Plus they host gay days

>>5672245
>MLK demanded that companies remove segregated seating.
It's a lot easier to demand that someone NOT do something than it is to demand that they do something. If Disney was portraying gay people in their movies in a highly negative light, a boycott might be very effective at getting them to stop. But demanding that they start including more gay people in their movies isn't likely to accomplish anything, and will probably just seem entitled and petty in most people's eyes.

Because we don't need it, only self-centered dirtbags clamor for representation in the media. If you want it, work for it yourself instead of shaming others to do it for you.

>being over the age of 13
>still watching kids movies
Shiggy diggy what the figgy

>>5672411
OP's statement effectively claims that all the progressive stuff disney has done in this regard is worthless. It actually is an entitled and petty statement.

If you look at Disney as respectable human beings and not all in it for the money, it doesn't really excuse them...