News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

[peter11435]

That's the solar plants, isn't it?

That’s one of the solar plants and the rapid infiltration basins

 

[JoeCamel]

That's the solar plants, isn't it?

I don't know, somewhere out there but the parcels are many along 429 so many owners some shell corps and individuals along with the disctrict

 

[LittleBuford]

Not everyone is engaging in good faith discussion.

Feels like the dungeon all over again!

 

[flynnibus]

Title VII is employment law; there has to be some sort of employer/employee relationship. It's not even Constitutional; it's statutory. It has nothing to do with 1st Amendment law.

Re read what was said. You really think the definition of retaliation in federal civil protection is going to be treated narrower than in the 1a?

You are cra cra

 

[peter11435]

They might have had a chance at a lawsuit if the change only hit Disney but the removal of special privileges that just went through hits several different groups in the state.

As for voicing their opinion, yes that was a problem. It is a problem that no company should ever get involved in politics that have no impact on the company itself. If a state passes a law that directly impact the company, then sure go for it because it is expected that a company would support a tax break or be against a new tax on the company... but this wasn't a law that had anything to do with Disney. As such the smart thing for a company to do is shut up and let the people in the state decide what they want or don't want. 20 years ago that is exactly what Disney would have done - nothing. This time they decided to pander to a vocal minority and this is what it caused. Hopefully it will be an expensive lesson learned and Disney will stick to the business of them parks and entertainment and keep their nose out of places it doesn't belong.

The fact that other parties are injured as collateral damage does not negate an action being a first amendment violation. Especially when the action was specifically stated to be meant to harm one of the parties for them exercising a protected action.

It’s great that you think companies should not involve themselves in politics that are not related to their operations. However that doesn’t change the law. Companies are allowed to do what Disney did and are constitutionally protected to do so.

 

[Disney Glimpses]

The fact that other parties are injured as collateral damage does not negate an action being a first amendment violation. Especially when the action was specifically stated to be meant to harm one of the parties for them exercising a protected action.

It’s great that you think companies should not involve themselves in politics that are not related to their operations. However that doesn’t change the law. Companies are allowed to do what Disney did and are constitutionally protected to do so.

Especially when there is ample evidence of malicious intent:

 

[Club34]

Based on the interviews with DeSantis, it seems like they just want Disney to pay more in taxes and remove their ability to build a nuclear power plant. I don't think anyone (Republican or Democrat) wants to see the District actually dissolve.

At least not until DeSantis either advances in National office or doesn't. This side show is about him, his ambitions, and riling up the base under the guise of "parental education say so" or whatever (which is a legitimate thing).

Perhaps, this will simply just quietly drag out in the background until he becomes president or not and then it goes away (along with the right's new found love of level playing fields for business). I don't think that DeSantis feels strongly about hurting Disney per se. He would've taken any politically expedient target to "own the libs". Chapek threw Disney to him.

 

[LittleBuford]

Especially when there is ample evidence of malicious intent:

These people are vindictive idiots. I hope this backfires on them spectacularly.

 

[Jrb1979]

Outside of it what Florida is doing is legal or not, I don't understand why so many are against this happening?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

DeSantis, his press secretary, the deputy press secretary, the lieutenant Gov, and over a half dozen state legislatures are on the record openly stating that this law was passed to harm Disney in response to their statement and content. Their statements have been made on the house and senate floors, at press conferences, on live tv, and on Twitter. And then you have DeSantis openly stating that Disney is going to pay more taxes as a result.

I’m gonna take a really wild guess and say they haven’t shown ANY of that on Faux…

Not one second

 

[Disney Glimpses]

Outside of it what Florida is doing is legal or not, I don't understand why so many are against this happening?

Why are many against something from happening that benefits no one?

 

[Disney Glimpses]

Honestly DeSantis losing this would be a win for him. Disney keeping this arrangement is good for his state and he keeps the "good PR" among his base that he's fighting Disney. Maybe that was the goal all along, who knows.

 

[LittleBuford]

Outside of it what Florida is doing is legal or not, I don't understand why so many are against this happening?

Because we are Disney fans who don’t want this malicious decision to adversely affect WDW’s offerings and prices. And some of us are members of the LGBTQI community who passionately oppose government discrimination. It’s particularly distasteful given the prominence of LGBTQI people among Disney’s CMs and guests.

That you don’t understand is frankly baffling to me.

 

[Club34]

Not everyone is engaging in good faith discussion.

Feels like the dungeon all over again!

New thread. Same behavior. However, I think DeSantis and Chapek are also guilty of this in their own ways in regards to this situation.

It's as if everyone is acting on emotion and/or bad faith positions and steering away from the actual kernels of truth in the various positions from this complex issue. What could possibly go wrong? The evidence/conditions on the ground appear to show we simply are incapable of nuance at this juncture. There will be no innocent bystanders and everyone will suffer unless folks exhale and take 1 step back to examine and unpack this with other folks they may disagree with. It's a huge ask but what is the alternative. The path we appear to be on with this issue and so many other big issues of the day appears to be untenable.

I would unpack it more but it would take us far away from the Disney connection and violate our mandates.

In this thread of “so-called experts” it’s nice to see someone say they don’t understand everything that is going on. Well done!

We really don't. I think the basic smell test reveals this is a proxy culture war battle on all sides under the guise of parental education rights and now special tax districting. It's a shame that Disney has become the front line as opposed to say...Cuisinart Food Processers? I mean, I hate those guys anyways.

The fact that people are ok with it shows that nothing is sacred (I know I'm setting up for blowback given the 'my child's educational interests' kernel) and we're simply incapable overall in being honest with ourselves and each other. The current climate seems to be full steam ahead, consequences be damned.

 

[JoeCamel]

Outside of it what Florida is doing is legal or not, I don't understand why so many are against this happening?

Um politicians using the state's power to avenge political slights?
How about if they decide your views are contrary so you need to pay them more money?

 

[Disney Glimpses]

Um politicians using the state's power to avenge political slights?
How about if they decide your views are contrary so you need to pay them more money?

Kinda crazy when you put it like that. Blatant abuse of power and any judge who doesn't see it that way is lying.

 

[LittleBuford]

New thread. Same behavior. However, I think DeSantis and Chapek are also guilty of this in their own ways in regards to this situation.



I would unpack it more but it would take us far away from the Disney connection and violate our mandates.



We really don't. I think the basic smell test reveals this is a proxy culture war battle on all sides under the guise of parental education rights and now special tax districting. It's a shame that Disney has become the front line as opposed to say...Cuisinart Food Processers? I mean, I hate those guys anyways.

The fact that people are ok with it shows that nothing is sacred (I know I'm setting up for blowback given the 'my child's educational interests' kernel) and we're simply incapable overall in being honest with ourselves and each other. The current climate seems to be full steam ahead, consequences be damned.

It may feel like a culture war to you, but to me, it’s about the basic human right to be able to tell a child that my partner of ten years is a man without fearing that a bigoted parent will report me for supposedly trying to indoctrinate their offspring. Either that or we ask straight people too never to talk about their spouses to other people’s children.

 

[flynnibus]

Outside of it what Florida is doing is legal or not, I don't understand why so many are against this happening?

Probably because the first amendment is kind of a big deal…. And having a vindictive state government targeting you is not a friendly situation for WDW and its ongoing outlook.

 

[danlb_2000]

what sexaulity talk is there to discuss to a 5 year old??????

answer: nothing, zilch, nada


adult themes such as sex/sex preference talk and 5 year olds don't mix

bye bye

The law isn't limited to 5 year it could be used to punish teachers at any grade school level.

 

[LittleBuford]

what sexaulity talk is there to discuss to a 5 year old??????

answer: nothing, zilch, nada


adult themes such as sex/sex preference talk and 5 year olds don't mix

bye bye

When you tell a child that you are married to someone of the opposite sex, you are disclosing your sexuality. When I tell a child that I am in a same-sex relationship, I am disclosing mine. Sex (as in sexual activity) doesn’t come into it. It’s perfectly innocent and age-appropriate.

Oh, and it’s not a preference. I no more chose to be gay than you chose to be straight.