I think a lot of shareholders are probably conflicted. Those that would have opposed this on any supposed moral grounds likely already sold the stock. Most finance folks are largely socially progressive.
As a small shareholder myself: Where there is legitimate concern (and I don’t take any joy in saying this) is for broader cast member and guest safety.
There is a risk that things like this become so politicized that the company is left with a Sophie’s choice:
1) place the employee in a guest-facing role as is their right but at an enhanced security risk since they’ve been doxxed on socials; or
2) open the company up to greater risk a state/federal employment discrimination claim and negative headlines with a core contingency of their customer base by attempting to steer said employee to either a less guest facing role and/or imposing an attempt at gender normative attire.
I wasn’t even referring to social stuff. I’m taking about money. If this all leads to a loss in profit. It’s one thing have a few random dude CMs with nail polish on. But that video yesterday is striking. It’s one step below having Male princess at the park. We have arrived. So curious to see what comes of this.
As for # 2 right, once they make these bold decisions they put themselves between a rock and a hard place.
Personally I’d love to see this experiment fail but I’m not holding my breath. When a movie like Strange World loses money it’s easier to tie back to why that might be. How can you prove the parks are losing money because of this stuff? It would have to be swift and massive loses.
Last edited: