General Star Wars News

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Except they can discriminate based on personal opinions.

There is no federal law that protects speech of employees from their employer. Federal laws only protect citizens political speech from the government with some additional protection for federal employees from discrimination based on political affiliation. Of course, that protection only exists if the powers that be choose to actually abide by and enforce those laws.

Now I know California has some additional state level laws that could come into play here, but my guess is this was settled largely for the same reasons as all the other recent settlements in media, Disney would rather pay money than bring any unwanted attention from DC.
Oh I know that…

An actor can be fired “with cause”
For any reason…like eating a snickers bar.

Dog eat the pooch in Hollywood.

I’m guessing Disney just laid a rather small fee to get an nda and move on. They don’t want anything coming up for their movie next year…which is almost the ONLY Star Wars thing they have going.
Which is ridiculous
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Which is why I always thought her case was weak.

Disney was fully within their rights to drop her for expressing political views while not doing the same with others. That might make them look like hypocrites to some, but that doesn't make it illegal.

Personally, I couldn't care less about most of what she posted, people often say dumb things online, often unintentionally, but she kept doubling down and it got pretty gross.
I’m more offended she said stupid things than she “won” her wrongful termination (or whatever?) suit.

Actually I’m glad she won…more light on an awful studio…

But I don’t support abstract stupidity.
 

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
Also this "equal offensive" thing you go on about is not actually "equal". There is no universal agreement that either side were equally offended, its a personal opinion based on some online chatter nothing more. You can say you were equally offended by both, but doesn't mean everyone universally agrees with you, which again means it an opinion not a fact.
Oh I'm pretty sure both sides were equally offended. You do know what he posted right? That people who voted a certain way are equal to genocidal maniacs and people who owned other people. That's not equally offensive? If your answer is no, then please explain how anyone could be offended by what Gina posted.
You're making up a fictional scenario in which someone changes their opinion based on who said it. This is a straw man argument and pretty much just lying and making claims about what other people think.
Give me a break. If that's what you need to tell yourself to sleep better. You've made your feelings known how you feel about her. You posted it, I've shown it. But somehow Pedro is not one of the worst people ever. Hmmmm? Sure I'm making a claim, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like duck.
Now we're claiming appearing in 40% of a show makes one a series regular? Just more spin and lies.
Yes. And the next season was 50% and then she would have been in the 3rd season. And then a spinoff. Did she appear on the show regularly? Did you even watch it?
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
Oh I'm pretty sure both sides were equally offended. You do know what he posted right? That people who voted a certain way are equal to genocidal maniacs and people who owned other people. That's not equally offensive? If your answer is no, then please explain how anyone could be offended by what Gina posted.
Did you take a poll of both sides to see if it was really "equal"? Or are you making up a statistic to continue this narrative? I mean you're claim is that you're "pretty sure" so you must have data to back it up right? Right?!?

And more to the point, have you polled how many people actually care in general of what either said? And would that show more than the people that don't actually care?

This is an argument you can't win because its all made up. This is no "equal" here because you can't qualify that with any data to back it up. For all we know one side was more offended than the other, or neither side really cared all that much and it was just in the interwebs where it was in the echo chamber.

Yes. And the next season was 50% and then she would have been in the 3rd season. And then a spinoff. Did she appear on the show regularly? Did you even watch it?
She was in 7 episodes out of the 25 of 3 seasons, which is 28%. If you want to call that a series regular, ok fine. But that doesn't mean as much as you think it does. Series regulars aren't the main cast, and certainly aren't on a guaranteed employment contract. They are contracted for a certain number of episodes and are on a season-to-season contract with no guarantee of return for the next season. So once season 2 ended her contract was up and there was no guarantee of work for season 3 or subsequent seasons, or future movies or future work for that matter. And future employment would have meant a new contract. Disney was under no obligation to her or any future employment for her.
 

DKampy

Well-Known Member
Sure, legally that's true. I think Disney knew they were going to lose so they settled. Just as I thought would happen. When anyone settles anything, most people think that implies whoever is guilty. And I completely agree. So in reality, this wasn't so cut and dry as I was told. As I said before, if Disney kept their yap shut, ended season 2 of mando and just moved on from there. No issues. But that's not what they did.

So I think aside from some people who really dislike Gina for her "side". The rest see why Disney was wrong in there handling of the situation. And before the usual suspects bounce back with their usual responses. It's not supporting what Gina said. It's the hypocrisy in their handling of it.
I don’t know that proves anything….a certain leader tried to sue CBS…, cause he did not like how they edit….apparently he forgot about freedom of the press…. Sometimes enterprises choose to settle because it is cheaper then dealing with monetary costs of years in courts
 

GoneViral

Well-Known Member
I don’t know that proves anything….a certain leader tried to sue CBS…, cause he did not like how they edit….apparently he forgot about freedom of the press…. Sometimes enterprises choose to settle because it is cheaper then dealing with monetary costs of years in courts
Or just don't want to go through discovery, which is what happened here.
 

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
And more to the point, have you polled how many people actually care in general of what either said? And would that show more than the people that don't actually care?
Yes. Every person who I've asked about it, except you and wendy apparently, have said, a celebrity calling them a Nazi slave owner is wrong and offensive. The fact that you two keep fighting that says a lot about where you're at.
This is an argument you can't win because its all made up. This is no "equal" here because you can't qualify that with any data to back it up.
I can't win because of course I can't ask the world. You know, just like you can't. So how are you any more right than me? Also, you keep framing that this as people being offended. When I said the statements are equally offensive. there is a difference and I think you know it. But admitting it means going against a party line.
She was in 7 episodes out of the 25 of 3 seasons, which is 28%. If you want to call that a series regular, ok fine. But that doesn't mean as much as you think it does.
Wrong! She was in 7 of 16 episodes, 44%. For the time she was on the show, she was a regular. If that's not regularly, what is? I mean it's hard to be on a season of a show you were fired from. And that's part of it, she was supposed to be in season 3 AND be in the spin-off.

Of course it doesn't matter. But I'm not the one who brought it up. I'm just refuting it because it's just another example that a couple of you use to justify bad things.

Look, it's really very simple. They both said dumb things. I don't care what party each side with. If I'm going to call out Gina for what she said, I'm obligated to call out Pedro or Zegler for what they said. We should all be able to put aside party lines and call out wrong. And when people shame one and then have every excuse for the other, it's just a sad state we're in.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Look, it's really very simple. They both said dumb things. I don't care what party each side with. If I'm going to call out Gina for what she said, I'm obligated to call out Pedro or Zegler for what they said. We should all be able to put aside party lines and call out wrong. And when people shame one and then have every excuse for the other, it's just a sad state we're in.
I believe we’re all in agreement that their statements were inappropriate. But two of them walked back their statements under pressure from Disney, whereas the third exercised her right not to.
 

Dranth

Well-Known Member
n this case you are just lying to yourself to defend your allegiance. Both people made equally offensive tweets. Just because Pedro wasn't talking about you, doesn't mean it wasn't equally offensive.
False equivalences are fun and all, but the problem sounds more like you are getting offended easily because of the "side" you have chosen.

I don't recall Pedro comparing his situation to the slaughter of millions of people in death camps. Get back to me when he does and I will gladly throw him in the same camp as the whiny snowflake who couldn't handle people pushing back at her after SHE started going off on others. She is a typical coward that can dish it out but whines and cries foul when it turns on her.

I don’t know that proves anything….a certain leader tried to sue CBS…, cause he did not like how they edit….apparently he forgot about freedom of the press…. Sometimes enterprises choose to settle because it is cheaper then dealing with monetary costs of years in courts
Setting aside that is standard practice for time constrained news programs and has been for decades, he also failed to sue his favorite network for editing the interviews he did with them. They even edited out some key comments that would have made some of the current issues they are facing more interesting.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
Yes. Every person who I've asked about it, except you and wendy apparently, have said, a celebrity calling them a Nazi slave owner is wrong and offensive. The fact that you two keep fighting that says a lot about where you're at.
I'm allowed to be offended or not offended by whatever I choose, just like you are, just like Wendy is, just like everyone is. I just don't put much stock in what celebrities say on a tweet. They are people, they are not gods, and people say stupid stuff all the time. Am I suppose to be offended by everything everyone says? That is a miserable way to live. And if I am I'd be offended by more than half of the stuff people post here, lol.

And just because you've asked a few people doesn't mean that is "both sides" or even close to representing "equal".

I can't win because of course I can't ask the world. You know, just like you can't. So how are you any more right than me? Also, you keep framing that this as people being offended. When I said the statements are equally offensive. there is a difference and I think you know it. But admitting it means going against a party line.
I'm not following a "party line" here, if you note I've stayed pretty neutral here only following the actual legal side of it. The tweets themselves are mostly beside the point to me.

But I'm not the one making claims about sides being "equally offended", you are. So as you are the one making the claim it is up to you to provide proof of that when challenged on its veracity, or just admit its made up. I must do the same when you challenge me, or any one.

Otherwise we can all just make wild claims about whatever and we can just throw all facts out the window, but I don't think you really want to do that. You've just dug in your heels here in some sense of morality superiority about "equal" and can't let go.

Its alright to just accept that not everything is "equal" in the world, and not everyone is going to agree with your stance.

Wrong! She was in 7 of 16 episodes, 44%. For the time she was on the show, she was a regular. If that's not regularly, what is? I mean it's hard to be on a season of a show you were fired from. And that's part of it, she was supposed to be in season 3 AND be in the spin-off.

Of course it doesn't matter. But I'm not the one who brought it up. I'm just refuting it because it's just another example that a couple of you use to justify bad things.
I'm counting based on total episodes, but ok count it how you want, still doesn't matter the percentage, she wasn't main cast. And I said ok call her a "regular", so what? The point that you're missing and what you've always missed in this argument going back since this all started is she was on a season-to-season contract. Once Season 1 ended she had to get a new contract for Season 2. Once Season 2 ended she would have needed a new contract if they were to bring her back for Season 3. She is not entitled to employment, Disney is under no obligation to bring her back for Season 3, no matter what previous decisions they may have had. Until that contract is offered and signed she is not employed for Season 3 or for Disney.

Also I don't believe I ever heard she was "suppose" to be in Season 3 until you said it here. All of this happened before the time Season 3 started production, so I don't know how you can say she was "suppose" to be in Season 3. They never announced she was coming back for Season 3 that I'm aware. Can you provide where you saw that she was "suppose" to be in Season 3, like an actual announcement? Or is this just an assumption on your part?

The only thing that she was confirmed to be in by Disney was the Rangers "squadron" show, and that was cancelled shortly after announced when this all happened in February 2021. So it was 2 months, from the time announced in Dec 2020 to the time cancelled in Feb 2021. And shows and movies get cancelled all the time for a variety of reasons.

Look, it's really very simple. They both said dumb things. I don't care what party each side with. If I'm going to call out Gina for what she said, I'm obligated to call out Pedro or Zegler for what they said. We should all be able to put aside party lines and call out wrong. And when people shame one and then have every excuse for the other, it's just a sad state we're in.
Actually no you aren't obligated to do anything, you choose to. Just like we're not obligated to feel offended by either, both, or any of it, its a choice. And that is the difference, there is not "obligation" here to do or feel anything in life, its all a choice. And once everyone learns that this world will be a better place.

Also I believe most everyone here has called out both for being stupid for posting anything, just like most of us did when the Zegler story came up. I know I've said plenty of times, even recently as yesterday, that I think celebrities shouldn't post much of anything.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
You can believe whatever you want, but everything about this case changed after Disney lost the discovery ruling in April. The company's lawyers weren't the least bit interested in a settlement before then.
Without any inside knowledge its still just an assumption on your part. And I assume you have no inside knowledge on the legal strategies of Disney's lawyers involved in this case. Unless of course you're claiming to be a Disney lawyer involved with this case, in which case I'm sure many here would have LOTS of questions for you.

Examples have been provided here for recent similar cases where companies settled even if they had what appeared to be a slam dunk case they could win. Settlements happen for all sorts of reasons separate from the potential outcome of the case or a particular procedural ruling.
 

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
I'm allowed to be offended or not offended by whatever I choose, just like you are, just like Wendy is, just like everyone is.
Of course you are, I didn't say you should be or not. I'm not offended by either. As I said long ago, I don't think either should have been fired. I am mad at how Disney handled it and the hypocrisy.
And just because you've asked a few people doesn't mean that is "both sides" or even close to representing "equal".
OK, sure? And how many people did you ask to claim I'm wrong? If someone can't see that both comments are equally bad. Then you are just a morally compromised person. Plain and simple. It's not that every person is equally offended by the statements. There's a difference between the 2.
But I'm not the one making claims about sides being "equally offended", you are. So as you are the one making the claim it is up to you to provide proof of that when challenged on its veracity, or just admit its made up.
Once again, you aren't reading what I said. The statements are equally wrong. For all we know absolutely no one cares what either said. Which is likely. My whole argument has been this. If what Gina said was SOOOOO horrible that Disney decided to try and ruin her career. Then I expect others who do the same to get the same treatment. Disney took it steps to far. And Before you say the usual nonsense. Show me where Pedro was put through the same scrutiny? You can't. So for all your blabbering about saying I have no proof, you're just making stuff up... That all goes for you as well.
I'm counting based on total episodes, but ok count it how you want, still doesn't matter the percentage, she wasn't main cast.
At her point of being fired, she was on the show regularly. I wasn't arguing she was "main cast". And again, I wasn't the one using that to justify my argument. I was just refuting it.
Also I don't believe I ever heard she was "suppose" to be in Season 3 until you said it here. All of this happened before the time Season 3 started production, so I don't know how you can say she was "suppose" to be in Season 3.
You watched the show right? It was pretty obvious she was planned to have a part. You can throw all the, well they never officially announced it, so your wrong!!! at me. But the direction the story was going and the fact that season 3 felt completely thrown together in a lot of parts, tells me a different story. And besides, they never said she wasn't, so you're just making things up. 🙄
just like most of us did when the Zegler story came up.
Is this a joke? The defending and excuse making for Zegler here was absolutely embarrassing.
Actually no you aren't obligated to do anything, you choose to. Just like we're not obligated to feel offended by either, both, or any of it, its a choice.
Well, if you walk a morally grey line, then sure. I'll leave it at this. If I call one person out for something wrong and I don't call another for the same thing. That makes you a hypocrite, and frankly, a bad person.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
Of course you are, I didn't say you should be or not. I'm not offended by either. As I said long ago, I don't think either should have been fired. I am mad at how Disney handled it and the hypocrisy.
Funny that you claim to not be offended, but yet you're one of the few people here actually fighting that "both are equally bad". So if you're really not offended why fighting about the "equally bad" part? Hmm.... 🤔

OK, sure? And how many people did you ask to claim I'm wrong? If someone can't see that both comments are equally bad. Then you are just a morally compromised person. Plain and simple. It's not that every person is equally offended by the statements. There's a difference between the 2.
I'm not the one who made the claim, you did. So I don't have to provide proof that your claim was wrong, you have to provide proof that your claim is right. Otherwise you're just spouting stuff to try and win an online argument, which is obvious at this point.

Also your distinction that "both are equally bad" is also false. Just because YOU feel that both are equally bad doesn't mean they are or that everyone agrees they are. And the fact that you keep trying to call people out for not condemning both really shows how this is not "equal".

Once again, you aren't reading what I said. The statements are equally wrong. For all we know absolutely no one cares what either said. Which is likely. My whole argument has been this. If what Gina said was SOOOOO horrible that Disney decided to try and ruin her career. Then I expect others who do the same to get the same treatment. Disney took it steps to far. And Before you say the usual nonsense. Show me where Pedro was put through the same scrutiny? You can't. So for all your blabbering about saying I have no proof, you're just making stuff up... That all goes for you as well.
Well we don't live in a world where people are always treated equally, sorry to break that to you.

Pedro is the star of the show. Maybe he was given extra latitude in order to correct his actions, which we know he did correct because he deleted all his posts and his account. But so what. Welcome to Hollywood where if your name is on the top of the call sheet you get extra latitude, its been the same going back over 100 years by all studios not just Disney.

But the point is that you keep failing to acknowledge, whether Pedro was given extra latitude or not is beside the point, he still complied and removed his posts, Gina did not. So in the end if Gina had removed her posts too none of this would have happened. Heck I don't even think she would have needed to issue an apology, just delete the posts. But she was stubborn and didn't and that is why things happened.

At her point of being fired, she was on the show regularly. I wasn't arguing she was "main cast". And again, I wasn't the one using that to justify my argument. I was just refuting it.

You watched the show right? It was pretty obvious she was planned to have a part. You can throw all the, well they never officially announced it, so your wrong!!! at me. But the direction the story was going and the fact that season 3 felt completely thrown together in a lot of parts, tells me a different story. And besides, they never said she wasn't, so you're just making things up. 🙄
Um, studios don't usually announce that series regular is not returning for a new season. Sometimes the trades report on it, but a studio themselves don't announce it. So that is a flawed argument.

Also they did announce she wasn't employed by Lucas/Disney in a statement February 2021 when this all took place. So that sort of implied she wasn't going to be in Season 3.

So again whether there were discussions or decisions made prior about her potentially being in Season 3, it was not guaranteed. And the moment she did what she did any future ended of own accord.

And so to the point, unless she had a signed contract in hand, which she never claimed because that surely would have changed everything from both a public opinion and a legal one, she isn't guaranteed anything. And that is something you seem to not be able to acknowledge because you're all about this "equal" thing. Pedro has an active contract, Gina did not. Plain and simple.

Is this a joke? The defending and excuse making for Zegler here was absolutely embarrassing.
And yet as I recall most everyone stated she shouldn't have posted anything, even if they agree with what she posted.

Well, if you walk a morally grey line, then sure. I'll leave it at this. If I call one person out for something wrong and I don't call another for the same thing. That makes you a hypocrite, and frankly, a bad person.
I honestly think most people in the world live a morally grey life. Plenty of people, PLENTY, call out someone for something and not another.

So congrats for being one of the few perfect people in the world that is not a "hypocrite", or what the rest of us call being a flawed human which is pretty much everyone else on the planet. Sorry that we all can't live up to your expectation of "equal". Time to come down from the high horse of moral superiority and join the rest of us.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom