If a company fires a woman because she’s pregnant, and makes a paper trail to look like she was fired with cause, but the CEO told a group of people that he fired her because she was pregnant, the courts aren’t going to disregard his comments and blindly accept the documents. Just as there’s no legal reason why Disney wouldn’t consider the utterances about the reasoning for the bill.I suspect the court won't look at that sans context, if at all. However, the court will look at this.
Memo: Amending the call for a Special Session
www.flgov.com
What he says to reporters doesn't carry nearly as much weight as people appear to be assigning it in this situation. If politicians were held to such a standard, we'd see a lot more successful lawsuits.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
brb1006
Well-Known Member
Adding this to a collection of awkward Chapek hand gestures for future use.
Kittlesona
Active Member
The video was so awkward to see him interacting with people. He really needs PR lessons. They would help in this situation.
brb1006
Well-Known Member
I'm already dreading to see how he would act for D23 2022
flynnibus
Premium Member
Because 1980s Orlando was nothing like 1965-7 Central Florida and none of them had the kind of clout, or resources WDP did in 1965.
Notice UNI, Sea World, and Busch Gardens didn't buy 47 square miles either? Yeah.. because they weren't swinging the same kind of stick nor amibitions.
flynnibus
Premium Member
You keep trying to redefine the standard but it doesn't matter - the standard has already been provided here multiple times. You are wrong.
I don't see the findings as wrong, just how the law will likely interpret it. So far, Florida's government leadership is in the clear so time will tell if they are legally in trouble with it.
flynnibus
Premium Member
That is not the standard that matters - so it's comparison to other companies is irrelevant in the evaluation.
Simply not true. Your logic would justify firing anyone including over discrimination simply because you gave them the job, you can take it away. That's not how protected rights work.
flynnibus
Premium Member
No, literally he's redefined the standard the courts use to determine if it's retaliation - This is not debatable nor interpretive. The criteria is from case law. Your assessment of the checks is your interpretation - but you don't get to pick your own criteria.
So back to topic then what do it really effect if it dissolves? Genuinely thinking would it be a massive reduction in staff that seems to go above and beyond? If things really are so difficult to get done building wise compared to other districts or comprable local governments, could we actually see an improvement then?
flynnibus
Premium Member
This is not a topic under control by those who write the state law - it's in the hand of the courts who have interpreted the constitution.
The courts have to follow the existing case law set by the higher court - this is not open to interpretation. The criteria to determine if something is retaliation against protected speech is already defined. This is not a debate.. no matter how many times poster chose to ignore it.
englanddg
One Little Spark...
The “standard” that “has already provided here multiple times” consists of assertions.
TWDC, perhaps, has a better claim under 14th than 1st, from my view. But, even that is shaky, considering they were not singled out or even directly party to the legislation.
You can listen to Fine outline the angle they’ll argue in the stream of the special session.
Let’s see how it plays out, shall we? In a year or so if TWDC has won their slam dunk easy peasy first amendment straight to SCOTUS landmark case you claim they have, I’ll happily admit you were correct.
I don’t believe it will be so simple.
flynnibus
Premium Member
These are not assertions - these are the tests used to qualify if retaliation has been committed:
If you believe my posts are assertive - it's because I'm not stating opinion, I'm stating fact. I didn't make these tests up myself, they aren't my interpretation.
You keep going back to this 'directly party' requirement which simply doesn't exist.
freedining
Member
What about the road signs when RCID goes away? Can Disney bring every corporate resource to bear so they won’t be forced to use boring, to code, green road signs?
Disney’s current silence is very interesting. I agree with the posters who noticed that. Perhaps hiring someone with actual PR experience, even if it’s very very political experience, is helping. Maybe they took the corporate twitter passwords away from the social media interns.
Instead of focusing on road signs, if Disney continues to use the full power of the Disney Corporation to attempt to overturn the will of the people, does the pushback stop with RCID?
Disney’s current silence is very interesting. I agree with the posters who noticed that. Perhaps hiring someone with actual PR experience, even if it’s very very political experience, is helping. Maybe they took the corporate twitter passwords away from the social media interns.
Instead of focusing on road signs, if Disney continues to use the full power of the Disney Corporation to attempt to overturn the will of the people, does the pushback stop with RCID?
IanDLBZF
Well-Known Member
I don't know if I'm too late with this post....
thehill.com
Biden rips GOP for targeting Disney
President Biden criticized Florida Republicans during a pair of fundraisers Thursday for targeting Disney after the company expressed opposition to a new state law restricting discussion about sexu…
thehill.com
freedining
Member
We were actually shocked watching the local news last night that the sidewalks were clear, no tents or piles of poop around the hotel the President was staying at. Maybe he should stay here for a week and move around to random hotels.I don't know if I'm too late with this post....
Biden rips GOP for targeting Disney
President Biden criticized Florida Republicans during a pair of fundraisers Thursday for targeting Disney after the company expressed opposition to a new state law restricting discussion about sexu…
englanddg
One Little Spark...
I have redefined nothing.
Your assertion is that Disney qualifies. You post the test as if to imply "SEE, Disney qualifies!" If I've misunderstood you, then I apologize. But, as I've read your posts, that is your assertion / opinion / interpretation.
So, let's walk back through where we agree and disagree.
1) It is indisputable that TWDC engaged in a protected activity. I think we easily agree there. One element met.
2) They were subjected to adverse action.
Debatable. First, were they? Perhaps RCID was, but RCID wasn't the one engaged in the protected activity, right? At least not in this discussion. So, problem number 1. As I've stated, TWDC will need to connect themselves with RCID.
"person of ordinary firmness". This definition isn't nearly as firmly (pun intended) established as you appear to believe it is.
Take Bennie v Munn as an example.
Bennie v. Munn - SCOTUSblog
Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court
www.scotusblog.com
Bennie was a tea party fellah who criticized Barack Obama and accused the state of targeting him for audits as a result. The District Court dismissed his complaint, even though the Court found the regulators "were motivated, to varying degrees, by the content of [Bennie’s] speech” and their actions were “arguably unconstitutional.”
His appeal was rejected by the Eighth Circuit. He appealed to SCOTUS. Also rejected.
In their review, the Eighth Circuit found he failed to prove that the actions taken by the regulators "chilled" his "political speech". If you don't meet this element, you don't get to jump to the third. The test stops here, as it did for Bennie.
TWDC is going to need to prove how this action has "chilled" their speech.
But, to touch on the third element TWDC will need to prove:
a) An adverse action was taken against them (see above)
b) That the action was caused by their protected activity in a substantial way. (this one is attainable, perhaps, but they need to clear the rest)
So, you're right. I was not clear. It's not that I disagree with you posting the standards the courts use in cases like this.
It's that I disagree with your assertion TWDC meets them simply because you posted them.
Yes. You need to have basis for a complaint, or at least you should...right?
Last edited:
flynnibus
Premium Member
No - I post them so people know what the criteria is and so people like you who keep trying to draw conclusions with incorrect criteria stop using the flawed assumptions.
Draw your own interpretations of the situation vs the tests... but you keep trying to redefine the tests.
englanddg
One Little Spark...
What statements have I made that are not within those bounds?
Last edited:
Serpico Jones
Well-Known Member
Chapek made a mistake coming out so forcefully against the bill. He should’ve kept his mouth shut and just absorbed criticism from activists in his company. Now he’s made everything much worse.