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

[lazyboy97o]

I didn’t say what they believe is wrong

How they did and are both handling it is/was wrong.

So you’re sticking with dissenting political speech being wrong? That’s your final answer?

This is about punishing “Woke Disney” for more than just one short statement.

 

[GhostHost1000]

So you’re sticking with dissenting political speech being wrong? That’s your final answer?

This is about punishing “Woke Disney” for more than just one short statement.

Look I’m not going to get into a pixie match with you guys, you can believe what you want just like Disney and I can. All I’m saying is all of this could have been avoided and Disney has been punishing themselves with their (mis)handling of things

 

[Chi84]

Look I’m not going to get into a pixie match with you guys, you can believe what you want just like Disney and I can. All I’m saying is all of this could have been avoided and Disney is punishing themselves with their (mis)handling of things

They could have kept quiet. They didn’t. How you feel about that ultimately comes down to what you think is right or wrong.

 

[flynnibus]

I didn’t say it was wrong, or even that I don’t agree with them, I just said Disney created their own problem.

So women create their own problem when discrimination happens? Or jewish people do? How about lgbtq?

You demonstrate severe lack of comprehension of what it means to be a protected activity or protected class.

They don’t need to hide or hold back

 

[Dranth]

Agreed, but they were basically still “getting away” with having reedy creek advantages…and they could have revoked that a long time ago. It wouldn’t even be questioned now if they hadn’t made a mess for themselves. I don’t care what side you are on or what you believe, Disney would have less problems in the world if they didn’t create most of their own problems.

I am still not sure what advantages those are. Legitimately. Someone please spell out what one of these advantages is (that Disney would care at all about). What exactly about RCID gives Disney an advantage with no trade off that no one else could also do if they wanted?

If people want to point out the fact that Disney could build an airport next to the Mickey ear shaped cooling towers of their theoretical nuclear plant as some kind of business defining edge than strip that out. Disney nor anyone else would care in the least. That is not what is happening though.

Also, why aren't these same people up in arms over other kinds of "advantages". Where is the special, government appointed board to oversee Universal because they are splitting the cost with local tax payers for road work to get to their private theme park? Where is the fist shaking, the outrage, the mob messing their pants with glee over the possibility of taking it to Universal?

It doesn't exist because this isn't and never has been about "advantages". This is about punishing a business because they disagreed with someone politically. That’s it, nothing more and I just can’t be on board with that. Don’t want companies to have free speech then get rid of the laws that allow it.

 

[GhostHost1000]

So women create their own problem when discrimination happens? Or jewish people do? How about lgbtq?

You demonstrate severe lack of comprehension of what it means to protected activity or protected classes.

wow ok I’m done with this thread. You all enjoy. What is done is done…and again, it could have been avoided and I hate where things are now.

 

[GoofGoof]

Look I’m not going to get into a pixie match with you guys, you can believe what you want just like Disney and I can. All I’m saying is all of this could have been avoided and Disney has been punishing themselves with their (mis)handling of things

I don’t disagree with your point that Disney speaking out has resulted in this conflict so it’s accurate to say they caused this by speaking out. Where I think you are hearing a lot of push back is whether the reaction by the government is right/legal/justified. TWDC made the decision to speak out knowing it may cost them business. Companies make these decisions every day. You can’t please everyone. If the result was a loss in business from some people opposed to their speaking out it wouldn’t be an issue.

Where this is a huge problem is one man (with the help of some sheep) is abusing the power of the government (power the people entrusted to him) to attack someone who spoke out against him. That should never be allowed anywhere and people shouldn’t accept it no matter how much they support the politician or his politics.

So while Disney could have avoided this they shouldn’t have to “keep silent” for fear of inappropriate government retaliation.

 

[UNCgolf]

Could be, but don't discount the number of truly bitter, angry people who have no joy in life other than seeing people/things they disagree with get "owned". The type that everything wrong is someone else's fault and who generally lose the ability to reason or even think when challenged.

I know a few of them and they are honestly some of the saddest people I have ever met. I know it would make them even angrier to hear it but, I honestly feel bad for them. I really just can't imagine my self-worth being so tied up into something so petty.

To clarify, I don't actually think they are from China/Russia. I was just pointing out that it's the kind of thing you could easily hear from a Russian or Chinese troll/bot farm, and maybe people should be self-reflective about that.

 

[Ghost93]

I feel like DeSantis's employees will simply make things difficult for Disney to get anything done with the parks as long as the company keeps producing inclusive content. They may refuse to allow an attraction to be built simply because they are angry about the diversity featured in products like the Proud Family, Strange World, Turning Red, Encanto, etc.

Disney can't and shouldn't give into these ghouls.

 

[Polkadotdress]

Florida is not hostile for business...unless you are Disney, maybe.

The governor and his party are defiling the democratic government we all live under by using the power of their office to punish an organization whose views they don't like. That is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

If you 'get into a mess' by simply expressing a political point of view over pending legislation and someone in the government doesn't like you doing that and thus targets you; and they misuse their power to harass you and cause harm to you, will you just shrug and say "I guess I shouldn't have stepped into it."?

Another example, non-Disney, in which the FL govt strips a business of their liquor license for hosting a LGBTQ-themed show.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis revokes venue’s liquor license for allowing minors to attend drag Christmas show

In an administrative complaint filed Friday, state officials allege the Orlando Philharmonic Plaza Foundation, which hosted "A Drag Christmas Show" in late December, didn't disclose the “sexually explicit nature” of the performance.

www.nydailynews.com

This is also not OK!

 

[Ayla]

Of course they have the right to say what they want, we all do, but with that can come consequences as well. Disney should just stay in their lane regardless of their positions on things outside running their company. They have enough problems to worry about right now before they create new ones.

IT'S LITERALLY THE DEFINITION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT!

 

[Andrew C]

But what the gov/legislature is doing is unconstitutional

We don’t know that. Yet.

 

[mikejs78]

We don’t know that. Yet.

Yes, we do.

 

[Chi84]

Of course they have the right to say what they want, we all do, but with that can come consequences as well. Disney should just stay in their lane regardless of their positions on things outside running their company. They have enough problems to worry about right now before they create new ones.

The consequences can’t be government retaliation. At least not in this country.

 

[Andrew C]

Yes, we do.

Has any court ruled? Has the US SC ruled on a case involving this issue? No. So we have our opinions on the constitutionality. Experts can look at past precedent and form educated opinions. But that’s it right now.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I am still not sure what advantages those are. Legitimately. Someone please spell out what one of these advantages is (that Disney would care at all about). What exactly about RCID gives Disney an advantage with no trade off that no one else could also do if they wanted?

If people want to point out the fact that Disney could build an airport next to the Mickey ear shaped cooling towers of their theoretical nuclear plant as some kind of business defining edge than strip that out. Disney nor anyone else would care in the least. That is not what is happening though.

Also, why aren't these same people up in arms over other kinds of "advantages". Where is the special, government appointed board to oversee Universal because they are splitting the cost with local tax payers for road work to get to their private theme park? Where is the fist shaking, the outrage, the mob messing their pants with glee over the possibility of taking it to Universal.

It doesn't exist because this isn't and never has been about "advantages". This is about punishing a business because they disagreed with someone politically. That’s it, nothing more and I just can’t be on board with that. Don’t want companies to have free speech then get rid of the laws that allow it.

I would suggest giving Married to the Mouse by Richard Foglesong a read about some of the advantages that Disney has enjoyed in the past. The biggest is that Disney is able to right size the District to its needs. If projects were getting held up by the building department because there wasn’t enough staff to review all of the projects in a timely manner, then Disney is able to get the District to hire more reviewers. There are also issues around the bonds that I would not be able to accurately articulate.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Has any court ruled? Has the US SC ruled on a case involving this issue? No. So we have our opinions on the constitutionality. Experts can look at past precedent and form educated opinions. But that’s it right now.

Do you think it should be illegal to hand out anti-war pamphlets? The Supreme Court once ruled that was okay.

 

[Andrew C]

Do you think it should be illegal to hand out anti-war pamphlets? The Supreme Court once ruled that was okay.

My opinion, morals, and values come into play when I vote. Or I could run for office. At the same time, we have to have some level of trust in the courts. Otherwise, we can’t function. They ultimately decide what is unconstitutional. That’s their role in our society.

 

[lazyboy97o]

My opinion, morals, and values come into play when I vote. Or I could run for office. At the same time, we have to have some level of trust in the courts. Otherwise, we can’t function. They ultimately decide what is unconstitutional. That’s their role in our society.

But those decisions are not static and permanent. We’re also not speculating about a lot of what is happening. Many of those involved have been very open about why they are acting and it is not a concern over land use in Central Florida.

 

[Henry Mystic]

Of course they have the right to say what they want, we all do, but with that can come consequences as well. Disney should just stay in their lane regardless of their positions on things outside running their company. They have enough problems to worry about right now before they create new ones.

The 1st amendment is supposed to prevent what you described, as freedom of speech is an innate right exclusively from governmental punishment.

Florida has no legal right to punish a company for its political views (especially not the execs themselves), and saying Disney could’ve avoided this enables tyrannical governments to abuse their power.

If you have to walk on eggshells to not displease the government—like Disney would‘ve had to towards DeSantis—then you’re in a dictatorship my friend. It’s how China works, or Russia, or any authoritarian state.

This applies to any political view, so if this was California punishing a conservative company exclusively for their freedom of speech (like criticizing a law or a politician), it would be equally effed up and deserve an outcry.

And it’s not like DeSantis or many Florida legislatures are even pretending to act like it isn’t related to Disney’s response to the “Don’t Say Gay” law. They’re in many cases outspoken about it.

If this was Florida going after Disney’s business practices with no 1st amendment rights being attacked we would not even be having this conversation. That is the ONLY reason Florida is going after Disney: because they chose to use their 1st amendment rights and the government there disagreed with them.

If Florida wants to help Floridians and actually hold Disney accountable in a legal manner, perhaps they could focus on stricter labor laws to combat the ways that Disney abuses the present ones to rip-off their employees, or wage new taxes towards the tourism sector to increase education funding per student (Florida has lower funding than the national average per student). Those are real issues.

This is in contrast to Google, Twitter, or Facebook from determining what they want to allow on their platforms. They are private companies that can do whatever they want. There are no 1st amendment protections because it wasn’t written to protect you against companies.