Well, the Lt Governor said that if Disney were to disregard their woke agenda, the state wouldn’t take action against them, so the retaliatory aspect is pretty assured, wouldn’t you agree?
-
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
danlb_2000
Premium Member
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
Yeah it's very clear from a "normal person observing the situation with common sense" perspective.
I don't know what the legal standard entails when it comes to proving it in court.
There absolutely is a possible first amendment claim.
But why only have one constitutional violation in a lawsuit when you can multiple, plus actual monetary damages while waiting a bit, but still remaining completely within the statute of limitations.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Disney has not acted because they are risk averse cowards. That’s it. Plenty of actual harms have occurred. They thought appeasement would work. They wrongly assumed that if they just sulked away then that would be enough and it would go away. The assessment wasn’t one of right or wrong, it was about what assumed to be the easiest.
Even now, with clear attempts to impair contracts, Disney might not act. They might again convince themselves that “this time they’ll actually stop.”
Even now, with clear attempts to impair contracts, Disney might not act. They might again convince themselves that “this time they’ll actually stop.”
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
That might be the one person whose comments would be less legally relevant since she was not actually part of the process.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Which is exactly what the board is claiming - it's voidable because it wasn't done legally. The arguments here I was responding to was the one that says the board can't possibly go after the deal because they are the ones that made it. That alone is not sufficient to keep the board from going back against the deal as the hypothetical highlights.
The keystone here is the debate around the argument made to determine the deal being invalid from the start... they can undo a deal if it was never valid to start. The big debate is.. if their conclusion on it being valid or not is correct. Not 'what are the correct avenues for reconciliation' (to paraphrase)
Again you all are already moving onto point #2 (terms of a developer agreement) while the board and it's lawyers are saying "Do not pass go, do not collect $200" and not even respecting the contract as in force.
You're talking past each other as you debate something different from the terms they are working from. I don't know if their interpretation is correct, but you're not even debating the same things as them.
Yes, we all know in that sequence of events how that woud go
4:45AM! I guess Florida isn't where woke goes to die.
I missed it.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
That isn’t what was being discussed. We are talking about the development agreement
sedati
Well-Known Member
You’re thinking in terms of physically safe where they are looking to see that it is ideologically safe. I’m sure there’s a whole field of engineering that deals with such concerns.
el_super
Well-Known Member
Yes it was.
Disney hasn't acted because they are still seeking compromise and settlement. They haven't acted because morality isn't dictating their actions, but PR and optics are. Shareholder value is dictating their actions. Anyone who thinks Disney will act as some form of woke crusader is setting themselves up for disappointment.
Patcheslee
Well-Known Member
The DFOT complained they were required to get RDIC approval prior to work.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
I am moving on to #2. I‘m assuming if the contract was illegal anyway there would be no need to bring up the notice issue. I guess it’s a throw a bunch of poo at the wall and see what sticks scenario. The only evidence the presented that the contract could be illegal was that e-mail screen shot which IMHO proves nothing legally. Again more of a PR stunt as they new the images would get tweeted out in an attempt to put doubt in people’s minds.Which is exactly what the board is claiming - it's voidable because it wasn't done legally. The arguments here I was responding to was the one that says the board can't possibly go after the deal because they are the ones that made it. That alone is not sufficient to keep the board from going back against the deal as the hypothetical highlights.
The keystone here is the debate around the argument made to determine the deal being invalid from the start... they can undo a deal if it was never valid to start. The big debate is.. if their conclusion on it being valid or not is correct. Not 'what are the correct avenues for reconciliation' (to paraphrase)
Again you all are already moving onto point #2 (terms of a developer agreement) while the board and it's lawyers are saying "Do not pass go, do not collect $200" and not even respecting the contract as in force.
You're talking past each other as you debate something different from the terms they are working from. I don't know if their interpretation is correct, but you're not even debating the same things as them.
Yes, we all know in that sequence of events how that woud go
Heppenheimer
Well-Known Member
Risk averse? Have you seen the incredible list of sequels and franchise-milking films they have in development?
Po'Rich
Well-Known Member
North Carolina appears to want to lure Disney to their state:
https://www.wfmynews2.com/article/n...olina/83-d80a3bc3-f3b2-4325-bf11-ac91b2ed82d6
I imagine it is only a matter of time before we start seeing similar proposals in other states. Of course, it's not really practical for Walt Disney World to move, but it does make for good theater.
https://www.wfmynews2.com/article/n...olina/83-d80a3bc3-f3b2-4325-bf11-ac91b2ed82d6
I imagine it is only a matter of time before we start seeing similar proposals in other states. Of course, it's not really practical for Walt Disney World to move, but it does make for good theater.
Section 114.05 addresses that situation
Statute in full.
Patcheslee
Well-Known Member
Finally figured out the whole Disney "woke" aspect. We get up for 7am Genie+!!! Now back to regular programming....
V.i.n.c.e.n.t.
Member
The first thing I always ask when I here someone say woke is asking them to define it... I usually get a deer in the headlights look
Surferboy567
Well-Known Member
I still think we are way past the point of “settling” they are clearly not in a position to keep hoping it will go away. They are going to keep accusing Disney of various things and destroy the structure of WDW piece by piece if they don’t start playing hardball.
They need to wake up that this is something that needs to be fought as quickly as possible.