They just need to hire Tom Cruise as their lawyer and then call the Gov to the stand:
Admittedly, it's difficult to stay "on message" when you're responding to many different members at the same time, each presenting their own argument.
I disagree on the clarity of the situation.
This is true. The devil is in the details. Even in employment cases it’s very hard to prove discrimination was the reason for termination. A low percentage of those cases succeed. As I’ve said repeatedly, in this case it’s pretty clear cut why the action was taken. Almost nobody really can dispute that.
I mean, when the people involved are specifically stating that fact over and over again, I don't see how it isn't clear. What makes the motivation unclear in this case?
Ummm, a violation of the first amendment of the US constitution by a state government is not a political game to be brushed off. This goes to the core of how the US works and what we the people can expect from those who we elect to spend our money. Reminder that the only reason for government is to collect our money and spend it for our benefit. Nothing more is required from them and we pay them to do that.
You are right on that point BUT, it wont happen that law wont take effect. its supposed to take effect in june 2023 right? it will be cancelled, revoked or whatever after the elections, i guarantee you this.
The legislation dissolves six special districts, Reedy Creek is only one of them.
I don’t disagree this is a likely outcome, but there’s no way to guarantee it. A lot can change and a lot is dependent on how Disney responds. Right now with relative silence as their response it leads me to believe they’d prefer a quiet, non-public resolution.
I think the fact it’s specific to special districts prior to 1967 is also problematic for the state. Why that date? Why not 1960 or 1970? They will have to answer the question as to why they picked that very specific timeframe.
1968 is when the state's constitution was ratified. The constitution has provisions governing special districts.
and why did nobody have a problem with that for 54 years? Including the supreme court that ruled unanimously in favor of the district after the ratification of that constitution.
That’s all part of the problem for the state. They can’t just fall back on it’s our right to dissolve this. The why matters in this kind of case. Why now?
Your hypothetical involves an otherwise appropriate cause complicated by a statement. That’s not this case. There was no noted wrong doing on the part of the District. The issue of retaliation is not based on one vague comment by a junior member of the legislature or a staff member.
And if they had kept their mouth shuts the other districts would have provided cover. Instead those involved have also stated their intent that dissolving other districts is to provide cover. Randy Fine admitted it was all really just about one company during the session.
My hypothetical was to highlight the difference between a right and a privilege, and to provide an example of how sometimes, a government will revoke a privilege when it deems it appropriate. In the case of Disney, they are certainly not responsible for any wrongdoing under the law, as the hypothetical driver was.
It's fine to say that it might not be bulletproof, because in law nothing is certain, but the reasons you're bringing up aren't valid arguments in first amendment law.
Good points, and also just to clarify, no one or entity has to do anything wrong for the government to change their mind on something.
Not necessarily. If the government agreed to certain terms they are obliged to follow those terms. Even then, just upending something that is working without any sort of research or plan for moving forward because you want to is incredibly unwise and not good governance. Doing it in response to speech makes it illegal.
There’s nothing ostensible about this situation. Those involved have said why before, during and now after they have acted. It was said in the capitol during the session. These aren’t back room whispers. Any sort of really similar hypothetical, like a cop announcing he will be looking to issue citations to people with certain bumper tickets and those driving similar vehicles, sound ridiculous because this has all been so brazen. Because this involves special privileges it would have been incredibly easy to build a pretense that would have muddied any claims of retaliation, but for whatever reason those involved decided to be very open.
