There are miles of green space preserved by Disney as natural habitat as part of the RCID. That’s some of the most valuable real estate in the country, and the dissolution of RCID could set off detrimental environmental impacts as the land could be sold/developed or claimed via “eminent domain”.
Then Bob should send Ron a thank you note.
But not to Disney.
Except it isn't Disney that is going to dictate the solution in this case. It will be the state of Florida and the counties that are impacted. Disney will likely have no control at all on how the Reedy Creek debt is dealt with. I suspect though that at the end of the day Disney will regret the can of worms they opened.
You must not have much faith in the governing ability of Orange and Osceola counties.
Of course they wont dictate the solution, unless you think winning a lawsuit is actually the solution, then maybe it can be taken that way.
In pure free market capitalism there are no taxes so it wouldn’t be an issue. That’s not what we are talking about here though.
How would it not be harmful for Disney for the county to be able to take and sell Disney’s land?
I'm not aware of any provision of the RCID dissolution bill that takes or sells Disney's land.
From a customer experience point of view, I can't imagine there is any foreign investor that could or would run the parks division worse than Disney currently runs it.
www.csemploymentblog.com
No Democrat voted Aye in the House or Senate Special Session.
Yes because it was their speech that is being chilled - not rcid’s
I am referring to land that is currently held by the district
Title VII is employment law; there has to be some sort of employer/employee relationship. It's not even Constitutional; it's statutory. It has nothing to do with 1st Amendment law.Supreme Court Holds That Employees' Close Family Members are Protected From Retaliation Under Title VII
On January 24, 2011, in Thompson v. North American Stainless, L.P., __ U.S. __ (2011), the United States Supreme Court held that the anti-retaliation
If the supreme court uphelds discrimination against family members is still retaliation under federal civil rights you can count on no such direct action requirement for a more fundamental constitutional right.
They simply have to demonstrate the action against rcid was to influence disney - which is something the state has already stated.
The three litmus test I provided do not require an action be explicitly enacted on the individual. That is the case law on retaliation for freedom of speech. You can keep disagreeing- it doesn’t make you right.
If you speak out against the gov and they imprisoned your significant other to punish you, you don’t think that is something you’d consider forbidden by the 1a? You think the courts would be like ‘… well, they didn’t imprison you…’?? And such a simple out would stand?
That’s why the second test does not include any requirement that the action was taken directly against you.
The district is not Disney. Disney does not own RCID's property; RCID does.
