DeSatanis and his cronies have said out loud, on film, that that’s what they’re doing, so it should be as difficult as rolling a TV into the courtroom and playing the tape.
ISTM a movement which has a state government nuke much of the financial and business-case basis of one of their largest private employers for the sole purpose of continuing their discrimination of people for ‘gender fluidity’… this movement is not going to be satisfied until the internment camp stage.
If then.
Disney would also have to prove the case that retaliation against the Reedy Creek Improvement District (a government agency) is the same as retaliation against Disney. Nobody has the right to continuation of the municipal governance of their choosing. Everyone knows that the RCID is a cutout for Disney, but does that limit the state’s otherwise absolute and (federally) unreviewable authority to abolish a municipality?
I really feel like something along these lines must have come up during the civil rights era, but I’m not finding anything. I know there were places that abolished public schools for a period of time to punish the black population for seeking integration, but I don’t know that there were ever consequences for that.
Unless, of course, the case should happen to land in Judge Kathryn Mizelle’s courtroom.
The Republican political figures might or might not understand cruelty as part of their purpose–certainly at least some of them do. But their performed cruelty is part of the appeal to their supporters. A significant chunk of conservative/Republican voters relish in cruelty.
Uh, yes. The definition of freedom of speech requires at the very least that the government cannot punish you for the content of your speech. You flat out argued that the government can, with a fig leaf, punish someone for the contents of their speech.
This is a basic logical syllogism: we have if P then Q (if we have freedom of speech, then the government cannot punish you for the content of your speech). You have argued not P (the government can punish you for your speech). Therefore not Q (we do not have freedom of speech).
I can understand some cynical person taking your position that the government will do whatever they want and ignore people’s rights. That is arguing that the rule of law does not apply.
But if you do think the rule of law applies, and you see an action where the perpetrator admits they are doing something illegal—i.e. retaliating against Disney for taking a political stance—then the rule of law says that it should be stopped.
A non-corrupt government could NOT use eminent domain simply because they dislike you.
- I think its weird liberals are defending a global capitalist corporation for having a special tax situation in florida
- Conservatives are just using this for political gain
- We welcome our Disney Overloads
- Desantis is a fucking homophobe.
- Other
0 voters
Should that last poll about Disney/DeSantis have had an “All of the above” option"?
- Yes
- No
- Other
0 voters
And if that happened to you, then you’d probably be screwed. If you go to a lawyer, they’d probably say, “Sure, you are in the right, and you might even win, after a decade or more of court battles and millions in legal fees.”
Mere peons like us would just have to sit back and take it, but Disney has a bit more resources.
There’s also the fact that not only Disney may have standing here. The governments and the people of Orange and Osceola counties are being harmed by Florida’s actions as well. I don’t know if the courts would recognize that, but IMHO, they should.
This is what it comes down to. Disney is doing this because they’ve made the calculation that looking like transphobic pieces of shit will lose them more money than anything DeSantis can do to them.
That’s the saving grace of the Free Market. Sometimes preverse incentives line up and all of a sudden Progress has some truly titanic forces on its side.
Please: the “special security operation” stage.
And DeSantis and the FlaGops are responding with a massive “oh yeah? well take THIS!”
John Goodman Southern Lawyer Voice
“Your honor, the statements made by my client in that footage were clearly meant as rhetorical, part of a long tradition of grandstanding meant for campaigning and entertainment purposes only. They are entirely irrelevant to the case, and as such do not constitute admissible evidence.”
Yep. Beyond throwing lots and lots of money around, Disney is actually relatively quiet when it comes to active lobbying.
In an article from late last year:
Rep. Anna Eskamani, D-Orlando, said she watches Disney lobbyists sit silently in committee meetings while other lobbyists work to persuade lawmakers how to vote.
“Disney is not going to be front and center against bills to protect workers from wage theft, or in support of state plans to preempt local authorities on ordinances to benefit a community,” she said. “They play both sides, but their entire legislative agenda is very focused on their bottom line.”
I’m sure the one-two punch of Disney pulling its donations and speaking up feels very, very, very much like betrayal of the most insidious kind. Like if your faithful dog not only bit you on the hand, but served you court papers demanding back wages for all the years of guard duty.
I certainly see that as a defense that would be trotted out, but it has the problem that then they went and did the thing that they were just talking about for grandstanding and entertainment.
The actions taken by Florida are the harm that Disney would be seeking to remedy, and their statements on why they took them should certainly be considered to be admissible.
And it does so because it has grown weary of how you bully your neighbor.
Nitpick: does not.
In some situations you don’t. It doesn’t follow that freedom of speech doesn’t exist at all in the United States.
And it doesn’t, not all the time.
By definition, a city that takes a bribe is corrupt.
~Max
I’m still not convinced that Disney as a corporation gives a particular shit about any marginalized community. It’s just the bottom line.
But it’s always nice to see the calculus changing, much in the same way advertisers feel showing same-sex couples will make more money in goodwill than what they lose in outrage.
In what way is Disney not paying its fair share of taxes? Do you have any examples of how the RCID reduces Disney’s tax burden? As far as I know, Disney pays property tax and sales tax and hotel taxes within all of its Florida properties. What specific tax is Disney avoiding?
From what I’m reading, RCID allows Disney flexibility, which I suppose is a benefit, but it’s hardly the financial gift Republicans are making it out to be. Local counties are against removing the district and are upset that the state didn’t ask them their opinion at all. Furthermore, RCID (Disney) pays their employees (e.g. fire department) more than their county counterparts so (1) Disney is paying more with RCID than without and (2) this sets up a huge headache for the counties as they have no way to absorb these employees in a fair way.
Yes, but the bottom line is that they make a luxury product for a very fickle audience.
If they made gasoline, then I can’t effectively boycott them and still go to work. Same situation if they made cars or food or housing, removing them from my life is not easy. Even Amazon is a much more “vital” service than Disney.
If Disney fumbles its PR, and turns people off of it, they lose money. They also depend on a number of creative types to create the content they sell, and those creative types are increasingly part of or sympathetic to marginalized communities.
Now, I was continuing your dog analogy, and gave a motivation as to why this loyal dog has turned on you. To update the dog analogy, he is weary of you bullying the neighbor, who is actually the one who feeds him.
As far as I can tell, the only financial savings to Disney are that they don’t have the costs of dealing with a municipal or county government for permits and such ( since Disney effectively is the government) and they probably save on some taxes that they would have to pay if they were part of a county - for example, school taxes. ( There are under 100 residents as Celebration was de-annexed and is not part of the special district.) . Those savings most likely don’t make up for the costs of maintaining all the infrastructure.