-
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
Bolded for emphasis.
Which law btw? I'm really not in the mood to fish through legislation.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Here is the law.
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
www.leg.state.fl.us
And leaders of the state houses are on the record as being open to making just such changes.
Florida may tweak resign-to-run law to aid a potential DeSantis 2024 run, leaders say
The current law says individuals running for federal office must resign. But some lawmakers think even under that law, DeSantis could run.
www.tampabay.com
Appreciate this.Here is the law.
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
www.leg.state.fl.us
And leaders of the state houses are on the record as being open to making just such changes.
Florida may tweak resign-to-run law to aid a potential DeSantis 2024 run, leaders say
The current law says individuals running for federal office must resign. But some lawmakers think even under that law, DeSantis could run.
And yep, sounds about right. Party and politics before people.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Again... this conflict had nothing to do with how the message was delivered so your whole "How something is presented is very often more important than what is presented" is irrelevant. It had everything to do with agendas and spite.
Hitler was really moving in his delivery and timing too...
Last edited:
Ayla
Well-Known Member
And it costs both parties an incredible amount of (wasted) money. Whether they realize it or not, FL taxpayers are paying for this hissy fit from their govenor.
GimpYancIent
Well-Known Member
True! RCID will go away, another entity will be created to fill the void that will not look like nor be named RCID but cover all the necessary functions, the state, counties, WDW and other parties involved will continue just fine. The small army of legal eagles working out the legal language and details are billing a ton of hours (yeah, they are happy) and the everyday citizen? will just foot the bills and have to survive with the results.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
You are one who was characterizing the speech as problematic because it was a “threat.”
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
Here, as a reminder, is Disney's statement:
It's not the most eloquent of compositions, to be sure, but neither is it "useless noise". I'm not sure how else the company could have expressed itself without prevaricating, which, to my mind, would have been worse.
Florida’s HB 1557, also known as the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill, should never have passed and should never have been signed into law. Our goal as a company is for this law to be repealed by the legislature or struck down in the courts, and we remain committed to supporting the national and state organizations working to achieve that. We are dedicated to standing up for the rights and safety of LGBTQ+ members of the Disney family, as well as the LGBTQ+ community in Florida and across the country.
It's not the most eloquent of compositions, to be sure, but neither is it "useless noise". I'm not sure how else the company could have expressed itself without prevaricating, which, to my mind, would have been worse.
GimpYancIent
Well-Known Member
Nah. You are entitled to your interpretation.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
They do realize it, and they don't care. Actually caring about fiscal responsibility goes out the window when it's your guy.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
Is Chapek's supposed threat in reference to the statement I quoted above? Or is another statement meant?
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
That is the "threat."
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
Oh. I really thought something else must be meant.
GimpYancIent
Well-Known Member
No lie. You do like to throw that word around. Yes, my post is there for all to see and everyone, you included, are entitled to interpret what you want. BC's presentation could have been done in one sentence, been nonabrasive and moved on. That is not how it was presented, not what happened, and a lot of unnecessary turbulence has occurred. What happened / happened, no changing history just now adapt to the present and the future that is being crafted as we speak.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
You’re complaining about it being two sentences too long? Which parts are overly abrasive? And no, what happened does not have to be accepted by anyone as the final word on what happened. What has happened absolutely can be changed otherwise a whole bunch of laws now considered unjust would still be enforced.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
The statement was from the Disney Company, not Chapek personally. None of us know how directly he shaped the wording.
Could you specify what you consider to be a threat in the statement?
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
I think it was the flip flop BC did that was a problem. BC mistakenly initially wanted to focus on the business instead of more important work of inclusion. Then he corrected himself and made it clear that the company was going to use its power to change the law.
If BI was in charge, he would have made it clear from the start he was against the law and made it clear that the company was going to use its power to change the law with no flip flop.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
I fail to understand how this applies to my post in any way. Even if Chapek completely botched the delivery of his statements how is that an attack against the state? I assume you just wanted to post this meme and picked my post which is fine. I wasn’t talking about whether Chapek was smart or elegant or charismatic as a speaker and I never suggested he did a good job getting his point across. I specifically said I thought the delivery was botched from the start. That still doesn’t make what he said an attack against the state.