Agreed. You don't cave to a bully. I am personally disappointed in Disney on this one and hope there is something else that is going on that we are all missing. However, at the end of the day they have all the information we don't. It's their company and their decision.
It’s not possible. UO can build an entire theme park before Disney can make a walk though water area.
I’ll acknowledge in 5-10 years time this probably will be moot. Optically though do you think this a good look for TWDC?
What attack? Calling out completely baseless, unsupported, contradictory speculation is not an attack.
Yes, they could.
1 thing is for sure. disco yeti isn’t getting fixed anytime soon
Those involved have publicly stated it is in retaliation. It was was during the last special session. Some have said they’d reconsider if Disney changed their content and management decisions. We’re apparently not allowed to share these statements here. The governor’s speech at CPAC is also relevant and enlightening.
I agree there’s a lot more that they could have done and could be doing. But I suspect the thinking was “we can’t wrangle the votes to stop this, so let’s try to work out the best deal we can from a financial perspective,” and then hope for the best. To say the least, I’m skeptical it works out.
In the absence of data, everything is speculation. Including your own assumptions in this matter.
They didn’t need to change votes. The state being able to just change a locally elected government into an appointed one goes against several aspects of the state constitution. Any city or even county that goes against the state can now have its charter amended or be consumed by a special district to remove elected officials from local decision making.
My personal political leanings are irrelevant. Simply commenting on @peter11435 blatant hypocrisy for chastising a user while engaging in the same behavior does not indicate my endorsement of anything said.
I think the probably with TDA in Anaheim has also been how blatantly connected with SOAR they’ve been in terms of pursuing some corporate interests vs. community interests.
Some of those involved have clearly stated that it was in response to Disneys statement. A statement that is protected by the first amendment. They have also gone on to say they might reconsider if Disney changed their output. This is a pretty clear example of silencing speech they disagree with. They weren’t upset that a corporation had this level control, they were upset that it was “woke Disney.”
I take issue with people making up excuses for Disney to do nothing. All evidence completely contradicts such speculation.
I have told you that I’m in agreement with the severity of the situation. I am upset with this govt overreach.
Your first line is what makes the argument about legislative intent difficult to pursue on first amendment grounds. Personal thoughts are irrelevant to any legal challenge. If the opinion was entered on the record during debate of the law then maybe it could be considered, but the legislative body is made up if multiple individuals each possibly with differing lines of thought on the law.
