lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Incorporation is a legal form of organization that includes groups engaged in a variety of activities.
-
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
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
It should be but it’s not.
As a result of this thread I’ve spent a lot of time reading about the San Antonio Chick Fil A case (because it’s the only similar case I can find) and the courts have ruled it was 100% legal for San Antonio to retaliate against Chick Fil A purely for political reasons. It’s now illegal due to Texas enacting SB 1978
Does Florida have a law on the books that prevents retaliation? If they don’t (like Texas previous to SB 1978) it may be 100% legal.
The good news is prior to a few years ago it didn’t seem to be a problem anywhere and in the only other case I’ve found (so far) the state has since rectified it by making it illegal.
Dranth
Well-Known Member
I don’t believe that is an entirely correct representation of the situation. The state supreme court sent it back to the lower courts because the plaintiffs tried to sue over a law that had not passed yet. One of the judges even commented that the plaintiffs should have the chance to “amend their complaint to plead current violations”. That is not at all the same as saying the government can retaliate for speech, it is more saying we are dumping this on technical grounds, please fix it and come back.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
I think the “Disney should stay out of politics” point has already been covered many times in this thread so I won’t go through it again.
As far as WDW being a magical place where everyone can go and have fun, that hasn’t changed one bit from this situation. It’s still a very inclusive place where people for the most part are accepted for who they are. The only thing Chapek threatened to do is attempt to overturn a law he said the company was opposed to. He pulled political donations from the state so politicians may feel directly hurt by it. I have never seen anywhere any statements about wanting conflict with individual citizens who happen to support the bill and they certainly never implemented any policies that would exclude those people from their parks or punish them in any way. I understand that some people may choose not to do business with TWDC over this but the company is not in any way excluding those people or not accepting their business. It’s a choice we all have as consumers. I don’t agree with all of the positions Chic-fil-A has taken over the years but I still eat their chicken sandwiches. I know others will not. That’s our choices.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
That is not at all what the court affirmed. The suit was not brought by Chick-Fil-A, so there were issues with standing and timing related to the law. The issue was not seriously litigated because the city reversed course.
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
The court said the law was not retroactive so at the time the City council voted to deny Chick Fil A they did not break any laws… so prior to SB 1987 what they did was perfectly legal.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Ex post facto laws are illegal. The court did not uphold the decision. The court is not supposed to put together your argument. So if you have a good case but use spurious reasoning, you’ll loose.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Florida Lawmakers Review Ways to Restore Some Disney Privileges
(Bloomberg) -- Florida lawmakers are reviewing ways to restore some of the privileges that the state stripped from Walt Disney Co., still reducing the company’s benefits dramatically without going as far as ending them all, a key legislator said.Most Read from BloombergLarry Summers Says Fed...
So it looks again like some members of the legislature have a desire to walk this back:
The sponsor of the law axing the entertainment giant’s Florida perks, state Representative Randy Fine, said he’s encouraged by last month’s ouster of Disney Chief Executive Officer Bob Chapek, who led opposition to DeSantis’s so-called “Don’t Say Gay” law. Fine said discussions were helped by signs that Disney’s returning CEO Bob Iger will steer clear of Florida politics.
“I think Mr. Iger has already said it probably was a misstep on the company’s part and how they handled it,” Fine said in an interview. “I don’t think we’d be in this situation if Bob Iger had been CEO.”
But the sticking point again is the Governor:
DeSantis won’t make any “U-turns” from the law he signed this year, his chief spokesman said. The governor will not reverse pledges to remove “the extraordinary benefit given to one company,” Press Secretary Bryan Griffin said in an emailed statement. “A plan is in the works and will be released soon.”
The governor is sticking to his story that a “plan” will be released soon. I guess we will see if that’s true, but I wouldn’t hold your breath on it. He has been saying that for 6 months now. At some point the legislature needs to stand on their own 2 feet and decide what they want to do. The power lies with the legislature to make the ultimate call.
Would a SCOTUS that has no problem overturning prior decisions overturn this one?
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The Florida Constitution does allow for legislation to go unsigned and become law.
The problem is the Florida Legislature won't. They will be concerned about a potential veto and I'm not sure there will be the votes to override a governor's veto. This Legislature has been pretty much in lockstep with the governor.
Last edited:
Only if the governor fails to sign or veto it within 7 days of being presented to him. That timeframe increases if the Legislature adjourns sine die during that 7 day period, then he has 15 days to sign or veto or the bill becomes law.
Many posters have been ignoring the No Politics rule - which I understand is difficult in this situation. But it still stands and if a poster finds it impossible to discuss this topic in a general fashion without being overtly political then you may be prevented from participating.
flynnibus
Premium Member
That wasn't the ruling in the case --at all--
The 4th Court of Appeals ruled the plantiffs didn't have standing in the matter. The court didn't rule on retaliation at all. The Texas Supreme Court decision to send it back to a lower court was based on the defense used. No court has found that any discrimination in this case was legal.
Texas SB 1978 is a game by the law makers to allow 3rd parties to tie up people with civil actions
That's not how this works... and that's not the claim the court judged on.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
I think it's highly unlikely the current SCOTUS would overturn Citizens United. Alito, Thomas, and Roberts were all part of the majority in the original case, so they're almost certainly not going to change their position. That means two of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett would have to side with the three liberals (and that's assuming Kagan, Sotomayor, and Brown Jackson would all want to overturn it).
There are pretty long odds against that happening.
Last edited:
GoofGoof
Premium Member
I don’t disagree. What they should do and what they will do are not necessarily the same. However, I do think a point comes where maybe they stand on their own if they see the writing on the wall that the Governor is moving on to bigger and better things and they will be left with the mess. If that happens and if an Iger lead Disney comes to the table to negotiate maybe they listen anyway despite the Governor’s objections.
At a macro economic level any politician who supports a plan to intentionally economically damage one of the top employers in the state while the country faces a short to mid-term economic slow down (likely a recession) is not doing their job and is not doing what’s in the best interest of the people they represent. If (when?) a recession sets in we all know the travel industry is one of the first impacted. In a state that relies so heavily on tourism for their economy the focus should be on propping up the industry not breaking it down. Disney isn’t going anywhere but we have already seen that Disney has announced cost cutting so by taking away some economic benefits of RCID that means they will need even deeper cuts elsewhere. That means more layoffs and citizens of the state out of work at a time when the whole industry may be slowing down.
pdude81
Well-Known Member
I think Desantis at this point has decided he's best off burying his head in the sand and then letting the courts throw this out. No way he wants to give up anything in this fight. He can say he was fighting for what he believes in, etc, etc. Also no reason for RCID or Disney to give up anything in this fight. Next move is for the state to show how this can happen without hurting taxpayers and still fit into the Florida and US Constitution.
flynnibus
Premium Member
The next session of the legislature isn’t until march.
They aren not in a rush to announce things before they can actually be acted upon.
I doubt we see anything until closer to the session deadlines
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
Many news cycles between then and now, who knows what might happen.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
@lentesta was talking about the building codes and the District on The Disney Dish. The EPCOT Building Code is not drastically different and more restrictive than the Florida Building Code when it comes to hurricanes as Len unfortunately suggests.
The ultimate wind load requirements in the EPCOT Building Code are similar to what Orange County enforces. Exterior elements must have the same Florida Product Approval as in other areas. What really drives some Disney facilities to being more hardened is their size, which can push them from the typical Risk Category II into a Risk Category III.
The Florida Building Code has largely been a success and make buildings more resilient to hurricanes. It is though only about 20 years old, so there is still plenty out there built under the prior, less functional system of codes. Except certain types of structures, there are also not recurring building code inspections to see if facilities are properly maintained. Even new construction can be deficient based on a variety of factors.
Building codes are also minimum standards. Exceeding them is allowed. Disney as a company has their own accessibility standards that, where possible, exceed those required by the District / State and the federal government.
The ultimate wind load requirements in the EPCOT Building Code are similar to what Orange County enforces. Exterior elements must have the same Florida Product Approval as in other areas. What really drives some Disney facilities to being more hardened is their size, which can push them from the typical Risk Category II into a Risk Category III.
The Florida Building Code has largely been a success and make buildings more resilient to hurricanes. It is though only about 20 years old, so there is still plenty out there built under the prior, less functional system of codes. Except certain types of structures, there are also not recurring building code inspections to see if facilities are properly maintained. Even new construction can be deficient based on a variety of factors.
Building codes are also minimum standards. Exceeding them is allowed. Disney as a company has their own accessibility standards that, where possible, exceed those required by the District / State and the federal government.
Last edited: