The disney insanity continues

[Weezer]

If a corporation concludes they will lose more business by not taking a stance than they will by taking a stance, should they take the stance that will be most financially beneficial?

When they take a stance, they know they're going to alienate someone. By not taking a stance, they alienate no one, other than those that just like to be outraged by anything and everything anyway.

 

[luthervol]

When they take a stance, they know they're going to alienate someone. By not taking a stance, they alienate no one, other than those that just like to be outraged by anything and everything anyway.

If an American company took no stance and continued to do business with Russia, would that be a good decision?
Would the people who were "outraged" and took their business elsewhere be in the category of "anything and everything"?

 

[Lawrence Wright]

I've never really understood why corporations make political statements. If individuals within the corporation wish to speak up, fine. But why make a statement as a corporation? I don't see the benefits. I'm not saying they don't have the right, or that it justifies retaliatory actions, but I don't see what they gain. Why jump in the fray? Just go about your business of making as much money as possible.

I don’t consider Disney’s opposition to the DeSantis bill as a “political statement”. It’s a difference of opinion.

It’s not unheard of for corporations to speak out against legislation.

They shouldn’t face retaliation from the government for doing so.

 

[TheDeeble]

If an American company took no stance and continued to do business with Russia, would that be a good decision?
Would the people who were "outraged" and took their business elsewhere be in the category of "anything and everything"?

Bad example. Your talking about a business that's already involved in Russia.

Disney, Microsoft, ect aren't involved in the abortion business (or teacher education practices) as part of their business model.

 

[Weezer]

I don’t consider Disney’s opposition to the DeSantis bill as a “political statement”. It’s a difference of opinion.

It’s not unheard of for corporations to speak out against legislation.

They shouldn’t face retaliation from the government for doing so.

I've already stated your third point, so I agree. I just don't understand why they felt the need to speak as a corporation. They have every right to do so without fear of reprisal, but I don't see what they gain.

 

[luthervol]

Bad example. Your talking about a business that's already involved in Russia.

Disney, Microsoft, ect aren't involved in the abortion business (or teacher education practices) as part of their business model.

The discussion with Weezer was about companies taking a stance in general.
But either way, it was a great example.

 

[TheDeeble]

The discussion with Weezer was about companies taking a stance in general.
But either way, it was a great example.

Is Weezer talking about a corporation already involved in the controversial business?

Or companies that have no part of it to begin with.

Why should anyone gaf what Disney, Amazon, Chick-Fila, ect thinks about abortion laws or what teachers can/can't discuss with a student. It has no bearing on their business model. It would alienate customers as Weezer said.

Nothing like Exxon already having oil business with Russia.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Corporations and individuals remaining silent for fear of retaliation from the government is exactly what our founding fathers had in mind 246 years ago.

I agree the government has no business playing favorites with companies. And I get that you’re responding to the assertion that the advice was given because of Disney and their issues with the state of Florida.
However I believe it’s the customer that they fear in this case……or at least that’s what they’re saying. Realistically companies should avoid political issues in most cases as it’s not smart business to piss off half the costumer base.

 

[Orangeslice13]

I don’t consider Disney’s opposition to the DeSantis bill as a “political statement”. It’s a difference of opinion.

It’s not unheard of for corporations to speak out against legislation.

They shouldn’t face retaliation from the government for doing so.

I kinda have mixed feelings on this. And honestly have not decided what I really think yet but at the moment I kinda see this as a church who recommends a political candidate. You do that and you should lose your exempt status

 

[Lawrence Wright]

I kinda have mixed feelings on this. And honestly have not decided what I really think yet but at the moment I kinda see this as a church who recommends a political candidate. You do that and you should lose your exempt status

Not sure I would go that far, seeing as how organized religion, corporate America and politics have always been joined at the hip.

You made a great point earlier in this thread suggesting if special districts are eliminated, tax exempt status for religious organizations should also be eliminated.

 

[Lawrence Wright]

I agree the government has no business playing favorites with companies. And I get that you’re responding to the assertion that the advice was given because of Disney and their issues with the state of Florida.
However I believe it’s the customer that they fear in this case……or at least that’s what they’re saying. Realistically companies should avoid political issues in most cases as it’s not smart business to piss off half the costumer base.

I’m of the opinion that Disney’s international reach and appeal offsets any negative impact to its bottom line due to conservative backlash in this country.

It’s like making a cruise ship lighter by throwing 100 deck chairs overboard.

 

[volbound1700]

Today I learned Walt Disney World is the only theme park in Central Florida, and they remain in business because…checks notes…Ninetendo has yet to create Central Florida’s second theme park to compete with Disney.

Apparently you are pretty clueless but what I can expect from a gator fan.

Disney basically has a unique monopoly on theme parks for Kids 0-10. No one in the area can compete for that group on the level of Disney. Sea World and Universal don't check that box like Magic Kingdom.

I know Six Flags tried to do the Looney Tune characters to compete with the Cartoony Characters of Disney but that never took off. Nintendo and maybe... maybe Nickelodeon are the only companies out there.

Mario can compete with Mickey Mouse when it comes to iconic, cartoony characters that young kids can love.

 

[volbound1700]

Not sure I would go that far, seeing as how organized religion, corporate America and politics have always been joined at the hip.

You made a great point earlier in this thread suggesting if special districts are eliminated, tax exempt status for religious organizations should also be eliminated.

Never going to happen. The country was basically founded on religious persecution/freedom. Look at the Puritans and Plymouth.

 

[Lawrence Wright]

Apparently you are pretty clueless but what I can expect from a gator fan.

Disney basically has a unique monopoly on theme parks for Kids 0-10. No one in the area can compete for that group on the level of Disney. Sea World and Universal don't check that box like Magic Kingdom.

I know Six Flags tried to do the Looney Tune characters to compete with the Cartoony Characters of Disney but that never took off. Nintendo and maybe... maybe Nickelodeon are the only companies out there.

Mario can compete with Mickey Mouse when it comes to iconic, cartoony characters that young kids can love.

Respectfully disagree.

Stay classy.

 

[volbound1700]

Respectfully disagree.

Stay classy.

Coming from the Gator fan trolling a Tennessee message board.

 

[luthervol]

Is Weezer talking about a corporation already involved in the controversial business?

Or companies that have no part of it to begin with.

Why should anyone gaf what Disney, Amazon, Chick-Fila, ect thinks about abortion laws or what teachers can/can't discuss with a student. It has no bearing on their business model. It would alienate customers as Weezer said.

Nothing like Exxon already having oil business with Russia.

That makes no sense. Corporations were doing business IN Russia, they were not INVOLVED WITH Russia's strategic geo-political planning. The corporations doing business in Russia strongly disagreed with Russia's political decisions and not only voiced their disagreement but stopped doing business in/with Russia. And that is totally appropriate.

 

[Lawrence Wright]

Coming from the Gator fan trolling a Tennessee message board.

Stay classy nonetheless.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Lawrence Wright]

Never going to happen. The country was basically founded on religious persecution/freedom. Look at the Puritans and Plymouth.

Taxing religious organizations is akin to persecution?

This country was also founded on certain individual freedoms, but that doesn’t exempt individuals from taxation.

 

[AshG]

Never going to happen. The country was basically founded on religious persecution/freedom. Look at the Puritans and Plymouth.

Yeah, about that... I wouldn't be using the Puritans as it an example of anything other than entitled control issues. They got run out of GB because their religious minority wanted to enforce their way of life on everyone else. They got here and outlawed Christmas.

 

[TheDeeble]

That makes no sense. Corporations were doing business IN Russia, they were not INVOLVED WITH Russia's strategic geo-political planning. The corporations doing business in Russia strongly disagreed with Russia's political decisions and not only voiced their disagreement but stopped doing business in/with Russia. And that is totally appropriate.

It makes all the sense. It even sounds as if you agree with me.

You are correct that businesses already doing business with Russia had to make a choice. Do we continue to do business in Russia or not? Congratulations. You are catching on!!!

But it doesn't apply to Disney, Chick-Fila, ect on abortions. Who are they continuing or no longer doing business with? What ties were they required to sever? Disney, Chick-Fila, ect were not involved in the abortion business so they have no reason to take public positions on those subjects. As Weezer said. It will alienate customers.

Weezer said:

When they take a stance, they know they're going to alienate someone. By not taking a stance, they alienate no one, other than those that just like to be outraged by anything and everything anyway.

Why would they not take a stance? Because it does not involve their business practice.

Unlike your Russia example. Where it sounds like you understand, but still aren't connecting the dots on why it is a bad example for Weezer's statement.

 

[luthervol]

It makes all the sense. It even sounds as if you agree with me.

You are correct that businesses already doing business with Russia had to make a choice. Do we continue to do business in Russia or not? Congratulations. You are catching on!!!

But it doesn't apply to Disney, Chick-Fila, ect on abortions. Who are they continuing or no longer doing business with? What ties were they required to sever? Disney, Chick-Fila, ect were not involved in the abortion business so they have no reason to take public positions on those subjects. As Weezer said. It will alienate customers.


Why would they not take a stance? Because it does not involve their business practice.

Unlike your Russia example. Where it sounds like you understand, but still aren't connecting the dots on why it is a bad example for Weezer's statement.

You just really don't get it. Businesses doing business in/with FL had to make a choice when they FL made a political decision with which they strongly disagreed. No longer doing business in FL would be beyond extreme in this circumstance. They thought voicing their disagreement with the policy was the appropriate action.
And isn't this in response to the "Don't say gay" bill? I'm not sure where abortion is entering this discussion.

 

[Lawrence Wright]

Chick Fil-A, Target, McDonalds and Disney are not in the business of public education or family planning, therefore they shouldn’t comment on proposed legislation about those particular issues.

Let’s apply that same criteria to individuals.

Individuals who have children in elementary school, or are actively in the process of starting a family (or growing their family) should be the only people allowed to voice an opinion on abortion or school curriculum.

 

[hog88]

I've never really understood why corporations make political statements. If individuals within the corporation wish to speak up, fine. But why make a statement as a corporation? I don't see the benefits. I'm not saying they don't have the right, or that it justifies retaliatory actions, but I don't see what they gain. Why jump in the fray? Just go about your business of making as much money as possible.

it makes sense for some depending on their client base but for most they should keep their political views private.

 

[VolStrom]

it makes sense for some depending on their client base but for most they should keep their political views private.

Yeah, well Disney's client base isn't mostly LGBT+ people, but apparently they forgot that.

 

[PKT_VOL]

That’s as bad of an argument as “the FFs never envisioned AR-15s”.

This just isn't true.

When they were writing, philosophizing, and enshrining the right to bear arms, they never envisioned nuclear weapons. Same can be said about their isolationism. We have to take what they thought in the context of the world and technology in which they lived.

Having said that, AR-15's are closer to the rifles of their day, relative to our government, than modern hunting rifles or pistols. Contextualization matters and is a valid prism to judge an issue against the founding fathers' written words. It just so happens that AR-15s fall in favor within the context of their amendments.