Florida Legislators Want To Remove The Reedy Creek Improvement District

Bender123

Well-Known Member
No. Free speech means no government consequences for speech, especially political speech.
Then they also shouldnt get favors, correct?

When your penalty is erasing the loopholes that you bought, then is it really a penalty? Its not like they are being put at a disadvantage or having a basic liberty taken away, they are losing a corporate welfare grant that they had no business having in the first place.
 

andysol

Well-Known Member
What exactly are you talking about? The bill is about parental rights - the right not to have a discussion about sex and transgender in schools with k-3 grades. Any trans or LGBQ employee can talk to their children about anything they want to. How about the right of parents to decide? How about the rights of non LGBQ or trans employees to be able to not have schools discussing sex with their small children? Maybe you should read the bill. Disney has no business getting involved in left wing politics.
And ask what employee’s rights are being attacked.

They’ll never have an answer. Because there isn’t a right being attacked.

Unless by rights, they mean a teacher’s right to have an open conversation about transgenderism with a group of 6 year olds instead of merely deflecting and going back to learning how to read.
 

castlecake2.0

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I’m against this bill as I also believe it’s targeting and silencing free speech, even if it might be legal.


But I also love the irony that this bit Disney in the butt.

And let me be clear- disney DOES NOT care about the LGBTQ community.
Same sex marriage is illegal in Japan still. See any protesting on behalf of TWDC re: Tokyo DLR?
Gay people aren’t allowed to cruise together in China and Disney cruise line abides by those rules. See any protesting on behalf of TWDC re: Shanghai or Hong Kong DLR or DCL?

Of course not. So the irony is- they did do this because they thought it would be wise from business standpoint. Which is clearly was not.

Cya Bob.
Disney Cruise Line does not and never has sailed to China?
 

Prince-1

Well-Known Member
Don’t twist words, that’s not nice. You know exactly what I meant by what I said.

Then make sure your words are clear especially with the topic being discussed. I didn't think you meant anything but based on some of the disgusting comments that people have posted in this thread in the past few days you never know.
 

durangojim

Well-Known Member
Basically yes. Getting rid of rcid in and of itself isn't the issue. Its the blatant punishment because of their opinion.
So then if what the state is doing is not illegal how can it be a punishment? I feel like I’m missing something here but I’m not sure what.
 

yensidtlaw1969

Well-Known Member
That is certainly what the activists want. Why do you object to parents having the right to decide when their children are ready for such a discussion?
Because - once again - that's not what the bill suggests.

The bill opens the door to people losing their job for even a mere passing mention of their sexual orientation - in ways that are culturally seen as perfectly acceptable for heterosexual relationships - and when pressed to close that door to clarify the supposed intent of the bill, action was resufed. They chose to keep that door open.

I'll link to the bill again, since it's clear that many people in this thread have yet to read it. It's only 7 pages and really should be required reading before joining this discussion:

 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
I’m not going to give you any examples you have special privileges and powers granted to by being a neutral entity. If you are now using your special rights, privileges, and power to now place your thumb on the scale of government you should now have no leg up on any competition. You don’t get to have special powers and also act against the hand that feeds you.
Won’t or can’t? The special powers are not granted to Disney as an entity, they are not interactively tied to Disney. The powers are shared with others including the Army.

Then they also shouldnt get favors, correct?

When your penalty is erasing the loopholes that you bought, then is it really a penalty? Its not like they are being put at a disadvantage or having a basic liberty taken away, they are losing a corporate welfare grant that they had no business having in the first place.
What are the specific special favors and loopholes with which you take issue? Which ones are explicitly tied to Disney and only Disney?
 

Chip Chipperson

Well-Known Member
This brings up a a question that I have. If someone or something like a corporation does something that causes the government to scrutinize that thing and then either pass a law that negatively affects the first party is it only “illegal” if the government says “we’re doing this to retaliate for X”?
I have heard at various points over the past couple decades that Florida has looked at modifying the RCID deal so if they had passed the bill 2 years ago would it have been fine? And if so how then does the process violate 1A?

Well, the fact that it was openly stated that thus was done I retaliation for voicing opposition to the bill is all the evidence you need to prove it is retaliation. That in itself means it is a violation of the First Amendment.

Secondly, if they looked I to dissolving RCID years ago and didn't take action at that time, then that would imply that they didn't see any problems with keeping it intact. What changed? Oh yeah, Disney voiced opposition to a bill backed by the people now attempting to dissolve RCID.

Honestly, when someone admits their intention to take action as a retaliatory measure and then follows through and takes that action, how much more evidence do you need to accept that the action was taken as a form of retaliation?
 

caranate

Member
They are abiding by those rules. Consequences from customers is fine. Don't spend your money there, boycott, etc. They don't have to act as a neutral party. They are afforded protection under the first amendment. The gov made it clear they were doing this as punishment and that is indeed a violation of the constitution.
This situation is not a retaliation against free speech. It is a retaliation against a corporation that has special privileges in the state of Florida that publicly stated it would step into the political arena to fight a law passed by the same state it enjoys special treatment. Disney stated they would stop political contributions and fight the law in the courts. Florida warned Disney that there would be consequences if they continued. Disney continued, Florida made good on their promise.
 

GimpYancIent

Well-Known Member
Won’t or can’t? The special powers are not granted to Disney as an entity, they are not interactively tied to Disney. The powers are shared with others including the Army.


What are the specific special favors and loopholes with which you take issue? Which ones are explicitly tied to Disney and only Disney?
The "Army"? Maybe something may in some way touch on the Army Corps of Engineers but the "Army"?
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
So then if what the state is doing is not illegal how can it be a punishment? I feel like I’m missing something here but I’m not sure what.
Something doesn’t have to be illegal to be punishment. Just because the state is allowed to do something doesn’t mean they can do that thing against someone for using their first amendment right to free speech
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
This situation is not a retaliation against free speech. It is a retaliation against a corporation that has special privileges in the state of Florida that publicly stated it would step into the political arena to fight a law passed by the same state it enjoys special treatment. Disney stated they would stop political contributions and fight the law in the courts. Florida warned Disney that there would be consequences if they continued. Disney continued, Florida made good on their promise.
congratulations. You just successfully explained why this is a violation of the first amendment
 

castlecake2.0

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
This situation is not a retaliation against free speech. It is a retaliation against a corporation that has special privileges in the state of Florida that publicly stated it would step into the political arena to fight a law passed by the same state it enjoys special treatment. Disney stated they would stop political contributions and fight the law in the courts. Florida warned Disney that there would be consequences if they continued. Disney continued, Florida made good on their promise.

The state of Florida also used this situation to fight back against “wokeism”, which I applaud their efforts. Just because you are the loudest minority doesn’t mean special privileges. Everyone deserves the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not special privileges because of your feelings, or whom you sleep with.
8C10624C-FDAD-491C-A6D7-682EE5C21D89.jpeg
 

Bender123

Well-Known Member
What are the specific special favors and loopholes with which you take issue? Which ones are explicitly tied to Disney and only Disney?

RCID, the social media law banning takedowns or people seeking/holding office, multiple special tax districts, etc...

Disney, specifically, had a rule enacted that exempted "companies owning or operating a theme park in the state of Florida" from many rules and laws. Its really a bit crazy exactly how much influence Disney Corp has on Florida politics.

Here is one example: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072/BillText/er/PDF

"The term does not include any information service, system, 471 Internet search engine, or access software provider operated by 472 a company that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment 473 complex as defined in s. 509.013."
 

sullyinMT

Well-Known Member
It is terrible. Just as it was for Chick-Fil-A, small bakeries, and religious groups that occasionally want to use public facilities. Maybe those up in arms now should have been allies to those groups then?
Out of the scope of this thread since it’s other businesses and other governments. But, suffice to say, it’s a case by case basis. In the CfA San Ant airport case, it smells a lot like this duck. In both cases, if politicians didn’t make their personal vendetta so easily known, there’s likely a myriad of valid reasons for at least making an argument against the business and directing a reasonable dialogue in the confines of law.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
RCID, the social media law banning takedowns or people seeking/holding office, multiple special tax districts, etc...

Disney, specifically, had a rule enacted that exempted "companies owning or operating a theme park in the state of Florida" from many rules and laws. Its really a bit crazy exactly how much influence Disney Corp has on Florida politics.

Here is one example: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072/BillText/er/PDF

"The term does not include any information service, system, 471 Internet search engine, or access software provider operated by 472 a company that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment 473 complex as defined in s. 509.013."
This thread isn’t about other things you don’t like. It’s about the Reedy Creek Improvement District. Give us the specific issues with the District.
 

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

Top Bottom