News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

Dranth

Well-Known Member
It is Disney's fault. Not because of who or what they want to champion, but due to the arrogance of thinking they can get away with anything-gouging, reducing or removing service, and more- Now the State's retaliation is out of line, but didn't the state do what Disney has done to others by pushing their weight on whatever they want.

Maybe, I mean Maybe, had they treated the consumer that puts $$ in the coffers just a little bit better- they would come to Disney's defense, rather then Disney lead the negative dirty laundry out for all to see.
No.

A customers course of action is to tell Disney to buzz off and never give them any money until they change course. That is it. No government response is acceptable for any of the things you mentioned. Period. Ever.

Now if you want to say it is Disney's fault that they are losing long term customers with bad product, reduced quality and questionable PR. Agree 100% but to claim they deserve to be on the receiving end of government retaliation because you don't like a private companies policy seems off.
 

Ghost93

Well-Known Member
So you think Chapek and co. did no wrong here?
Morally, no. Strategically, it would have been better if they simply opposed the bill in the first place instead of first doing nothing and then feeling the need to overcompensate after getting trashed by employees and the media.

Still, what the governor of Florida is doing in retaliation is inexcusable and Disney is not at all at fault for his actions.
 

Rickcat96

Well-Known Member
No.

A customers course of action is to tell Disney to buzz off and never give them any money until they change course. That is it. No government response is acceptable for any of the things you mentioned. Period. Ever.

Now if you want to say it is Disney's fault that they are losing long term customers with bad product, reduced quality and questionable PR. Agree 100% but to claim they deserve to be on the receiving end of government retaliation because you don't like a private companies policy seems off.
Agree with you on everything you said.

What I attempted to articulate was Arrogance put Disney in its own dilemma. As I stated, the states retaliation is out of line. The state did what Disney has done for years leading up to this- Push their weight around.

Disney is not the victim; they are the bully and the bully got bullied back.
 

GhostHost1000

Premium Member
Morally, no. Strategically, it would have been better if they simply opposed the bill in the first place instead of first doing nothing and then feeling the need to overcompensate after getting trashed by employees and the media.

Still, what the governor of Florida is doing in retaliation is inexcusable and Disney is not at all at fault for his actions.

What Disney did in my opinion was throw excess chum into the water and attract sharks from both islands.

What Florida is doing however is wrong. Period. No question about it. It’s a political stunt like everything else unfortunately in the world these days but Disney drew attention to themselves more than necessary to get here
 

GhostHost1000

Premium Member
Nothing. Absolutely, unequivocally nothing. You keep trying to confuse different issues, which is exactly why you are being called out. If you make the rudest, nastiest comments about me, I don’t get to shoot you. We are not both wrong. Whether or not your words are appropriate for an upstanding citizen is completely irrelevant. The egregious nature of me shooting you completely negates any qualms about your words, because no amount of nasty words justifies me shooting you. Chapek engaged in perfectly legal speech. The state is now try to suppress a human right it is obligated to protect and you keep trying to wave it away with public relations whataboutisms.
I never said what Chapek and Disney did wasn’t legal, but they unnecessarily drew attention and attracted conflict (from both sides actually) and here we are.
 
Last edited:

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
What Disney did in my opinion was throw excess chum into the water and attract sharks from both islands.

What Florida is doing however is wrong. Period. No question about it. It’s a political stunt like everything else unfortunately in the world these days but Disney drew attention to themselves more than necessary to get here
You keep contradicting yourself. Sharks attack chum because that is their nature. It is not supposed to be the nature of the state to attack speech.
 

GhostHost1000

Premium Member
You keep contradicting yourself. Sharks attack chum because that is their nature. It is not supposed to be the nature of the state to attack speech.
Didn’t say it was…but any way one side can attack the other for political or personal advantage is what happens on a daily basis unfortunately. It’s why people and companies have to be careful what they do and say sometimes. Don’t give them a reason to come after you.

Look at how many people have been cancelled or companies boycotted over things they’ve said. Is that free speech?

I hate politics. It’s more show than anything and no one comes out a winner. Exhibit A right here with this reedy creek Disney circus
 
Last edited:

Rickcat96

Well-Known Member
To what end? A law that creates a chilling effect on the LGBT community marginally less than the one signed into law by the governor is good for the business of Disney and Central Florida. How does this change to RCID benefit the State?
I am sorry fgment, I re-read what I said and it appears that choice of words favor the states intent of the law itself- I don't, never have or will, It's wrong.

It's not what I meant. I believe both sides acted arrogantly (Disney in General-not its response to the law), instead of cooler heads prevail.
 
Last edited:

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Didn’t say it was…but any way one side can attack the other for political or personal advantage is what happens on a daily basis unfortunately. It’s why people and companies just have to be careful what they do and say sometimes whether it’s right or wrong. So why give them any reason to come after you.

Look at how many people have been cancelled or companies boycotted over things they’ve said. Is that free speech?

I hate politics. It’s more show than anything and no one comes out a winner.
Making an analogy is you saying it! And you keep saying it even as you claim you are not.

Yes, people freely choosing to boycott companies is free speech.

We’re not talking about grandstanding. This is the state seeking to inflict actual harm. This does not happen to this extent every day and plenty of people do not excuse attempts to curtail speech even when it is someone for their “side.”
 

rio

Well-Known Member
Didn’t say it was…but any way one side can attack the other for political or personal advantage is what happens on a daily basis unfortunately. It’s why people and companies just have to be careful what they do and say sometimes whether it’s right or wrong. Don’t give them a reason to come after you.

Look at how many people have been cancelled or companies boycotted over things they’ve said. Is that free speech?

I hate politics. It’s more show than anything and no one comes out a winner. Exhibit A right here with this reedy creek Disney circus


Speaking your opinion is free speech
Boycotting a business because of their beliefs is free speech.
"Canceling" a business because of their beliefs is free speech
Supporting a business because of their beliefs is free speech.

Being targeted by the state for your opinions or your boycotts or patronage is NOT free speech.

I can't believe we are at a point where it is acceptable to use the power of the state to encroach on our right to speak up.
 

GhostHost1000

Premium Member
Stop it. You know you're doing.

Speaking your opinion is free speech
Boycotting a business because of their beliefs is free speech.
"Canceling" a business because of their beliefs is free speech
Supporting a business because of their beliefs is free speech.

Being targeted by the state for your opinions or your boycotts or patronage is NOT free speech.

I can't believe we are at a point where it is acceptable to use the power of the state to encroach on our right to speak up.
Good grief people for the last time…

I DO NOT AGREE WITH FLORIDA COMING AFTER DISNEY AND REEDY CREEK (they are wrong for doing that)

Now back to your regularly scheduled program (hopefully on Hulu, Disney needs help paying streaming bills)
 

Ayla

Well-Known Member
I agree with everything you said. 100%. Not sure why I get attacked for saying this could have been avoided. Your statement about Chapek making things worse is exactly what I’m referring to
You are being called out, not attacked, for speaking out of both sides of your mouth. There is no "both sides" bull crap to this situation.

You also said you were done with this thread a few days ago...
 

kong1802

Well-Known Member
Good grief people for the last time…

I DO NOT AGREE WITH FLORIDA COMING AFTER DISNEY AND REEDY CREEK (they are wrong for doing that)

Now back to your regularly scheduled program (hopefully on Hulu, Disney needs help paying streaming bills)

I believe your point, please correct me if I'm wrong here, is a frustration that if Chapek would have handled this in a different way, none of this would have happened. Its an overall frustration that Disney is in this fight.

I think though, that we need to put the blame on the situation where it actually belongs. We can be frustrated with Chapek for how we think he should have played it, but the real situation here is over reach. Hall - "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it" should have been the response. Since it wasn't, the blame is on those who are entrusted to defend that right.
 

Disstevefan1

Well-Known Member
I should have warned you that you’d be attacked for agreeing with me. Everyone is stuck in their corner and then comes out fighting when you don’t agree with them
Understood. Only some opinions are allowed.

It’s ironic since in the grand scheme of things, nothing any of us say on these boards will make any difference.

These boards are just for entertaining discussion, nothing more.
 

mmascari

Well-Known Member
Didn’t say it was…but any way one side can attack the other for political or personal advantage is what happens on a daily basis unfortunately. It’s why people and companies have to be careful what they do and say sometimes. Don’t give them a reason to come after you.

Look at how many people have been cancelled or companies boycotted over things they’ve said. Is that free speech?

I hate politics. It’s more show than anything and no one comes out a winner. Exhibit A right here with this reedy creek Disney circus
These are not all the same thing. There are fundamental differences with them that are important. This isn't just some small nuance either, it's the entire ball game. That you keep comingling them is the exact issue.

Disney, any company, any person, whomever can 100% though speech in all it's various forms, express opinions about politicians and policy.

The government can never retaliate against that ever. There's no both sides here.

Politicians, consumers, other businesses, whomever are completely fine to push back on those opinions.

Those are not the same things. If Ron wants to give speeches, organize rallies, call for boycotts, not personally give Disney any money. Those are all completely fine. If Ron wants to use the power of the government to punish Disney, that's crossing a line that should never be crossed. There is nothing that should ever be worried about where that is the outcome. In every post, you treated both of these responses as the same, when they are fundamentally different. You keep saying "you didn't say" in the very same posts where you are "completely saying" it.

If you want to go on the radio, street corner, or live stream right now and express for hours how you disagree with some FL policy, that's your right or Disney's right. If because of that, people don't want to talk or do business with you, that's completely acceptable. However, if the state wants to impose the force of government on you for it, that's 100% not acceptable. There is no, "well, shouldn't have been yelling those things, should have kept to yourself". That's not a thing.

Totally agree. A company taking a side (in this case TWDC) is what caused this RCID mess in the first place in my opinion.

As @GhostHost1000 just said, companies should focus on running their business.

I don’t think this was even “political speech” on Disneys part at all. It was a business decision based on labor and it was an easy one to make.
This is severely overlooked in these discussions too. Those that excuse the government response with "they should just run their business" keep completely missing, they were 100% running their business here. This was an employee and customer relations action. They made the business decision that the response was better for maintaining their labor force and for overall customer relations than not having a position.

Are they only allowed to manage labor relations when it doesn't upset the government? Is there a list of which business decisions are fine and which ones are not allowed because they're too "political"?
 

Disstevefan1

Well-Known Member
…American business has never been “apolitical”…that’s not how economics in society works…certainly not in a modern economy.

This was started by Florida and it’s players…plain and simple. Disney was damned no matter what they do.

They should make a deal with Tallahassee:

“We’ll let you take over reedy creek…you give us back the hundreds of billions of dollars of tax and economic growth that we created…just by ourselves…

….mmmmmm, K?”
Agreed. RCID existed at the pleasure of the state from day one.

For 50 something years RCID and TWDC played nice together. TWDC getting the better deal in my opinion.

That said, the replacement district we still be special, just less special.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Agreed. RCID existed at the pleasure of the state from day one.

For 50 something years RCID and TWDC played nice together. TWDC getting the better deal in my opinion.

That said, the replacement district we still be special, just less special.
There’s is zero justification for the change…which is what Disney’s entire case will be if goes to court
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom