Disney: The Most Evil Business In The World

#927
#927
n_huffhines said:
Why does this exclude the idea that Desantis was making a political effort to hurt their business? (it doesn't)

I'm no legal expert. I don't have a marketing degree. But by my knowledge of the English language, the events that have taken place, and the things that have been said, I would guess Disney has a pretty good case.
Click to expand...
Because he doesn't solely have the power? If he had an EO, this suit would be legit and I'd support it.
 
#928
#928
utvols88 said:
To win a suit, you have to show damages. How your business was unfairly punished or damaged by the other party.
Click to expand...

OK, but punishment is not the same thing as damage. I'm sure they can come up with clever ways to show damage. That's never been a problem for lawyers and economists.
 
#929
#929
#930
#930
hog88 said:
I think it only applied to the Disney district and yes I do think multiple vindictive laws at federal and state levels are passed each year and wish more people and companies would file suit over them.
Click to expand...

I believe the law only targeted special districts that were created prior to 1974, which exempted virtually everyone but Reedy Creek.
 
#931
#931
n_huffhines said:
OK, but punishment is not the same thing as damage. I'm sure they can come up with clever ways to show damage. That's never been a problem for lawyers and economists.
Click to expand...
I'll agree with you on the lawyer and economist point. But were the damages unfair? Every bill has a negative impact on something.

If we look at term limits, it has a negative impact on someone that wants to be a candidate for a job. But are those damages of inaccessible wages unfair?

Or if we look at alcohol being sold to only 21+. Were there damages to the alcohol industry? You could point some out. But are they unfair?
 
#932
#932
utvols88 said:
Because he doesn't solely have the power? If he had an EO, this suit would be legit and I'd support it.
Click to expand...

I think it's odd that you have such tunnel vision on this when you are such a smart guy and I'm a doofus. They have a case with or without the legislation passing. You are acting as if the only potential damages directly relate to the legislation. Hog and I are smart enough to read every word and spot the operative ones, like "effort." I don't see a headline that narrowly defines it the way that you are looking at it.

Seems appropriate

utvols88 said:
Or you could use logic rather than hoping something is true due to bias. But it seems you'd rather be a doofus instead.
Click to expand...
 
#933
#933
n_huffhines said:
I think it's odd that you have such tunnel vision on this when you are such a smart guy and I'm a doofus. They have a case with or without the legislation. You are acting as if the only potential damages directly relate to the legislation. Hog and I are smart enough to read every word and spot the operative ones, like "effort." I don't see a headline that narrowly defines it the way that you are looking at it.

Seems appropriate
Click to expand...
Politicians directly go after businesses often. I just don't think this has merit because it's too common. I understand Disney being upset about it. But what is given by the legislature can be taken away by it as well. If Disney was the only one to not have the perk, I'd side with Disney. I just don't think words about them in the realm that Disney entered willingly is a good argument.
 
#934
#934
utvols88 said:
Politicians directly go after businesses often. I just don't think this has merit because it's too common. I understand Disney being upset about it. But what is given by the legislature can be taken away by it as well. If Disney was the only one to not have the perk, I'd side with Disney.
Click to expand...

Can you name examples where a business took a political stance and then an executive declared war on the business and then his party did indeed go after them, both through the media, with threats, and literally changing the law to hurt them?

I mean, he's talking about building a prison next to Disney. You can go the mafia route and say "It has nuttin' to do wit da otha thing" (in my best Tony Soprano voice) but we all know what's happening here.
 
#935
#935
n_huffhines said:
Can you name examples where a business took a political stance and then an executive declared war on the business and then his party did indeed go after them, both through the media, with threats, and literally changing the law to hurt them?

I mean, he's talking about building a prison next to Disney. You can go the mafia route and say "It has nuttin' to do wit da otha thing" (in my best Tony Soprano voice) but we all know what's happening here.
Click to expand...
The prison thing was him quoting a Floridians suggestion in a joking manner. He's not putting a prison next to Disney.

You asked for such a specific scenario lol. I'll give some examples and maybe legislation wasn't successful (because there was opposition but there were attempts) Guns have been attacked, alcohol, cigarettes, Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, car manufacturers, or are you asking if a company made a political statement about an issue that has nothing to do with their business and then all that happened? I don't think many companies have done that. I can't think of one at the moment but open to it have happened.

If there was legislation that directly affected Disney as in a harsh tax on tourism industries then I'd understand the plight. They should be able to opine and flex on those issues even if it goes against the people but Disney should not be in the business of opining on separate issues to their operation against the people of the states wishes. Its silly to enter that realm. Jmo.
 
#936
#936
Fwiw, I'd have some criticism of desantis if it was mentioned in a legit way. As a Floridian, I don't want our put together areas (tourism areas) to have our smelly laundry on display as we welcome guests.
 
#937
#937
utvols88 said:
The prison thing was him quoting a Floridians suggestion in a joking manner. He's not putting a prison next to Disney.

You asked for such a specific scenario lol. I'll give some examples and maybe legislation wasn't successful (because there was opposition but there were attempts) Guns have been attacked, alcohol, cigarettes, Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, car manufacturers, or are you asking if a company made a political statement about an issue that has nothing to do with their business and then all that happened? I don't think many companies have done that. I can't think of one at the moment but open to it have happened.

If there was legislation that directly affected Disney as in a harsh tax on tourism industries then I'd understand the plight. They should be able to opine and flex on those issues even if it goes against the people but Disney should not be in the business of opining on separate issues to their operation against the people of the states wishes. Its silly to enter that realm. Jmo.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course politicians have led crusades against businesses based on the nature of the business (temperance movement, anti-gun, etc.) but this is completely different because Disney isn't getting targeted because of disapproval of their business model. They are getting targeted for having a political position.

Remember when Obama's IRS was targeting conservative businesses? I don't even know if it's actually true, I just remember that narrative. But the point is we don't like this. We don't want people or organizations to be the targets of vindictive politicians simply for their political beliefs.

And the last part is ridiculous. Disney is a worldwide brand that is thinking about the next 100 years and their stated opinions shouldn't be confined to those that match "the people of the states wishes." What if they want slavery? Disney shouldn't say anything? Get outta here. This is irrelevant to the conversation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohhbother
#938
#938
One thing that crossed my mind....in addition to their regular property taxes, etc. the special district allowed Disney to set up an entity to levy an additional set of taxes on them for their infrastructure. Until now, Disney had appointed this board. Now, this taxing entity is appointed by Ron (and made up of by his donors). Disney now has no say (or no voting powers) towards an entity that can levy taxes on them. Sorta sounds like taxation without.........
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lawrence Wright and hog88
#940
#940
Got this from another poster on another site who seemed knowledgeable on the situation:

Let's look at actual facts:

1. The state of Florida dissolved all districts that were not renewed after a certain date. Reedy creek was one of those. Reedy creek was set to dissolve at a specific time if Disney did not file a new plan

2. Disney filed a new plan but the state set up its own district.

At this point if anyone on here believes that "freedom of speech" somehow trumps actual laws .. not sure what to tell you.

3. At some point before a new board was appointed to the new district, Disney and their reedy creek people passed some new bylaws or contractual agreements that may or may not be legal. That was being addressed by the new board

4. Disney sued screaming, among other things, that their freedom of speech was being denied.

The other theme parks are not part of any special district so any analogy or argument is worthless.

I do not know of how any federal court can make a ruling regarding either the dissolution or enactment of a special district. Nothing above has anything to do with free speech. Nothing above was isolated to Disney except their reapplication was not granted. However, that was the legislature
 
#941
#941
utvols88 said:


I don't see how they have anything winnable. It went through legislation like their initial perk. It is what it is.
Click to expand...

You don’t think DeSantis violating their constitutional rights is winnable? Lol. There is a mountain of evidence that DeSantis singled out Disney. He, and by he I mean the people of Florida, will lose badly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic and ohhbother
#943
#943
GoBigOrangeUT said:
You don’t think DeSantis violating their constitutional rights is winnable? Lol. There is a mountain of evidence that DeSantis singled out Disney. He, and by he I mean the people of Florida, will lose badly.
Click to expand...
Freedom of speech? They aren't being punished exclusively. Look at the post above yours. I don't see it as a violation of constitutional rights if the gov changes a welfare system, for example
 
#946
#946
I thought Joe Biden had this great economy booming & getting stronger by the day?
I guess he lied again about how everything is just peachy keen w/his leadership.

 
#947
#947
OrangeTsar said:
And the law applies to all of those other districts equally. You don’t think that multiple laws every year are designed out of a vindictive motive to punish one’s political opponents?
View attachment 548415
Click to expand...

It's not the same this time because we know clear as day what's happening here. What you are describing is something where the politics happen behind closed doors with plausible deniability.
 
#948
#948
hog88 said:
There are 1800 Special districts in FL the same or similar to Reedy Creek and the new bill passed and signed only affects Reedy Creek.

Florida special tax districts like Disney’s Reedy Creek, explained

DeSantis Now Controls Disney World’s Special District—Here’s What That Means
Click to expand...

That's the killer right there.

Disney was targeted and DeSantis went out of his way to let everyone know it was because they went against his grain. If someone wasn't aware of what the 1st amendment actually protects against, they're about to get an education.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohhbother
#949
#949
n_huffhines said:
It's not the same this time because we know clear as day what's happening here. What you are describing is something where the politics happen behind closed doors with plausible deniability.
Click to expand...

It's funny to watch those who used to screech about protecting the Constitution bob and weave when it's employed against an interest that they disagree with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohhbother, Lawrence Wright and n_huffhines
#950
#950
n_huffhines said:
Can you name examples where a business took a political stance and then an executive declared war on the business and then his party did indeed go after them, both through the media, with threats, and literally changing the law to hurt them?

I mean, he's talking about building a prison next to Disney. You can go the mafia route and say "It has nuttin' to do wit da otha thing" (in my best Tony Soprano voice) but we all know what's happening here.
Click to expand...

Chick Fil-A has been banned from several cities in the Northeast as a political attack for their owner donating to "anti-LGBT" causes.

I would say that qualifies and is even worse than Florida going after Disney.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN-POSSUM, BigOrangeMojo and W.TN.Orange Blood
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top