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

[yensidtlaw1969]

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:

https://www.miamiherald.com/latest-news/article259859150.ece/BINARY/HB%201557%20education%20bill.pdf#storylink=readmore_inline

 

[lazyboy97o]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[peter11435]

The "Army"? Maybe something may in some way touch on the Army Corps of Engineers but the "Army"?

The department of defense has assets in the district

 

[castlecake2.0]

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.

 

[awoogala]

The Disney Co. is fast becoming more efficient at separating guests from their money with the handicap of not having gambling yet still drain every cent they can from people's pockets.

I don't know- paying for genie+ and hoping you get a few good passes sure feels like gambling to me...

 

[Bender123]

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."

 

[lazyboy97o]

The "Army"? Maybe something may in some way touch on the Army Corps of Engineers but the "Army"?

Yes, the US Army. Shades of Green is within the Reedy Creek Improvement District. As a landowner the Department of Defense gets a vote. Any construction at the resort has to be permitted by the District and follow the EPCOT Building Code.

 

[sullyinMT]

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]

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.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I must say I am very surprised we haven’t seen the “A private company should not be allowed to have a nuclear power plant!” line that often gets tossed out when discussing the powers of the District.

 

[MandaM]

What a weird comment...Americans, overwhelmingly, dont support corporations buying influence in governments and Disney and Twitter were fine as neutral entities. The moment either threw in on a political stance is when it opened itself for consequences from the government elected by the people...Hell, Disney would have been fine if it just maintained the stance that it had no opinion on it, but the cast can act in their own way after work. Nobody really cared when Disney originally said they werent going to take a stance on it

I guess that if a company doesn't want to reap damage from political action, they should just avoid being overtly political.

In America, it’s illegal for the government to retaliate when someone expresses a political opinion. The 1st Amendment guarantees Disney that right. Remember freedom of speech?

 

[durangojim]

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?

I get that but in this case it seems that it’s more political grandstanding than anything else. If I tell you that I’m mad at you in front of all my friends who are morons and then throw a soft foam ball at your face which makes you wince but do nothing else I’m not sure that you could consider that anything more than me flexing my muscles.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I get that but in this case it seems that it’s more political grandstanding than anything else. If I tell you that I’m mad at you in front of all my friends who are morons and then throw a soft foam ball at your face which makes you wince but do nothing else I’m not sure that you could consider that anything more than me flexing my muscles.

It’s not just grandstanding. There are consequences that will negatively impact not just Disney.

 

[MandaM]

not true. this is about keeping these companies out of the political arena. They have no business being there and should just stick to what they do best...entertainment!

The 1st Amendment gives Disney the right to express political opinions. It’s illegal for the gvmt to retaliate for that. And all major corporations are involved in politics. That’s why lobbying exists.

 

[the_rich]

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.

The reason they are doing it makes it illegal. Intent matters. By coming out and saying we are doing this as retribution it makes it a violation of free speech.