Because RCID is not Disney (and vice versa) and the legislation doesn't touch Disney at all. It eliminates a government body. If a court were to determine that Disney is RCID (and vice versa) that would open up an entirely different can of worms (under current state and federal law). And I'm not sure even Disney wants to open that can of worms. At the most base level, you even have an issue about whether or not Disney has standing to bring a lawsuit.
Yes it all will be in the courts long before the execution date and long after. RCID will be a fading memory before any kind of resolution is achieved in the courts, a small army of attorneys will make some money though.
I agree that both “sides” are useless…because they serve the same interests: their pockets.
The last 15-20 years haven’t had the same warm and fuzzies as the first 30 with the state/city
…correct. For political donor money.
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.
True, but only one administration defended it before SCOTUS, and had to do it a second time because they ignored them the first time. Otherwise, yeah, right or left is just two sides of the same coin.
If elections had yielded different results…the other side would have done the same strong arming or worse. The opposition/support would have flipped.
You have to be just trolling right?
I disagree. I think it matters a lot. But if you have some caselaw that says otherwise, I'm happy to hear about it.
Roy Disney went to Florida in 1964 and told them to create it to make wdw possible.
…we’re heading down that road from the looks of it
Not everyone is engaging in good faith discussion.
I'm blushing.
Agreed. The previous administration was no stranger to strong arming. I'm glad to denounce authoritarianism wherever it is, including the previous administration, the current one, or the one in Florida right now.
Not relavent and also a bit misleading.
You're a pretty lazy debater. You've been provided numerous examples, explanations, and literal links to the questions you ask and your response is always the same.
Not at all. You can't say someone is punishing someone (or an entity) for speech unless you can identify the specific speech. And in the instance of a legislative body, you have a couple hundred people and they may be acting with different motivations. In this instance, you had over 130 different legislators vote to approve this bill and your suggestion appears to be that one person (the Lt Gov), who did not vote on the bill, could invalidate it through her comments. I disagree.
