DeSantis Ratchets Up His Run Against DIsney

The Joker

Super Anarchist
8,378
747
World of Shit
Thanks for confirming my suspicion that you would object to your enemy doing what you justify for DeSantis. 
First off I don’t see you or the other side as my enemies.  I know that claim along with Bullshitters is your favorite dog whistle. 
Second I do not justify what DeSantis is doing I think it’s an overreaction.  My point from the  beginning was Disney getting involved in a law that did not effect them.    Hobby Lobby did not object to the entire ACA LAW only the portion that was against their religious beliefs.  What part of this law would effect WDW?  

 

badlatitude

Super Anarchist
30,436
5,613
First off I don’t see you or the other side as my enemies.  I know that claim along with Bullshitters is your favorite dog whistle. 
Second I do not justify what DeSantis is doing I think it’s an overreaction.  My point from the  beginning was Disney getting involved in a law that did not effect them.    Hobby Lobby did not object to the entire ACA LAW only the portion that was against their religious beliefs.  What part of this law would effect WDW?  
On Friday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and his Republican allies revoked Disney’s longstanding tax privileges in the state in retaliation for the company’s opposition to the right’s anti-LGBTQ culture war. In doing so, Florida Republicans have violated Disney’s civil rights.

This collision of conservative policies—anti-LGBTQ panic and tax breaks—came after Disney criticized Florida’s new anti-LGBTQ education law. Its critics know it as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill.

The law prohibits teaching about sexual identity and sexual orientation in some Florida classrooms. In response, Disney called for the law’s repeal and paused its political donations in Florida. Next, DeSantis rushed through a measure to deprive Disney World of its designation as special tax district, which has allowed Disney to self-govern its massive Florida theme park for 55 years. DeSantis saidDisney’s opposition to the bill “crossed a line.” 

“Once upon a time Disney was a great partner with the state of Florida,” Republican state Rep. Jackie Toledo said. “Shamefully, Disney betrayed us.”

But retaliating against someone for exercising their First Amendment rights is a violation of that person’s civil rights. Even if that “person” is Disney.

“It is a violation of the First Amendment for the government to punish a corporation because of the company’s expressed viewpoints on political issues,” says Adam Winkler, a constitutional law specialist at UCLA School of Law and the author of We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights. “I think that we will see legal challenges to this. And I think there will be constitutional challenges to it.”

Florida might argue that Disney doesn’t have a right to a special tax privilege that other companies don’t receive. But under Supreme Court precedent from 1972, the government cannot rescind a privilege once granted for improper reasons such as retaliation for political speech. And Disney’s actions—both its statements and its decision to pause its donations—are protected First Amendment activity.

Over the last century, the Supreme Court has extended civil rights to corporations, insulating them from government reprisal for exercising those rights. It wasn’t long ago that Republicans were cheering this trend. “Corporations are people,” Mitt Romney famously said as a presidential candidate in 2012. The party also helped usher in the era of massive corporate political giving with the US Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, which secured corporations’ rights as political donors under the First Amendment, and backed the Hobby Lobby decision, which recognized some corporations’ religious beliefs. These rulings had significant downsides for American democracy. 

“There is the irony that conservatives for the last 20 years have been emphasizing that corporations have rights too and should be able to spend money to influence electoral politics,” notes Winkler. “And yet, now they’re trying to punish a company for trying to influence politics.”

Interestingly, it shows something progressives have often not discussed, too. Other Supreme Court rulings on corporate rights, including the landmark press freedom case New York Times Company v. Sullivan, have helped maintain democratic norms. Autocrats use their control over the private sector to wield power, erode democracy, and stifle protest. But because of rulings like Citizens United Disney at least has the option to fight back on constitutional grounds.

“This whole situation highlights one of the hidden benefits of recognizing corporations to have rights, that corporate rights also serve as a check on government tyranny,” says Winkler. “If corporations did not have rights, then the government could run roughshod over corporations, and restrict their freedom of speech and profoundly hurt and harm democracy.” 

Disney may have crossed DeSantis. But it’s DeSantis who crossed the line.

https://www.motherjones.com/mojo-wire/2022/04/desantis-dont-say-gay-republicans-florida/

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sol Rosenberg

Girthy Member
94,337
11,849
Earth
First off I don’t see you or the other side as my enemies.  I know that claim along with Bullshitters is your favorite dog whistle. 
Second I do not justify what DeSantis is doing I think it’s an overreaction.  My point from the  beginning was Disney getting involved in a law that did not effect them.    Hobby Lobby did not object to the entire ACA LAW only the portion that was against their religious beliefs.  What part of this law would effect WDW?  
The part that abolishes Reedy Creek Improvement District, for those of us not trying to change the subject. 

 
A

Amati

Guest
Their board quite likely has access to the numbers for Pride weekend vs Sibling Fucking but don’t leave out the MAGA Days. Corporate citizens should be celebrated for Citizens Uniting and Hobby Lobbying or Chick Fil A’ing to bash librul causes, but if they want to criticize The Nominee, the frothing bots will attack.
 

There’s a reason the cowards set this to take effect more than a year from now. It will never go into effect, but it has a great effect in terms of distracting from Al Lawson’s district getting carved up between the Boys, as well as the district currently served by that woman with the temerity to challenge Liddle Marco of H2O.
1st amendment, uh, remedy  :lol: for Disney?

 
A

Amati

Guest
On Friday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and his Republican allies revoked Disney’s longstanding tax privileges in the state in retaliation for the company’s opposition to the right’s anti-LGBTQ culture war. In doing so, Florida Republicans have violated Disney’s civil rights.

This collision of conservative policies—anti-LGBTQ panic and tax breaks—came after Disney criticized Florida’s new anti-LGBTQ education law. Its critics know it as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill.

The law prohibits teaching about sexual identity and sexual orientation in some Florida classrooms. In response, Disney called for the law’s repeal and paused its political donations in Florida. Next, DeSantis rushed through a measure to deprive Disney World of its designation as special tax district, which has allowed Disney to self-govern its massive Florida theme park for 55 years. DeSantis saidDisney’s opposition to the bill “crossed a line.” 

“Once upon a time Disney was a great partner with the state of Florida,” Republican state Rep. Jackie Toledo said. “Shamefully, Disney betrayed us.”

But retaliating against someone for exercising their First Amendment rights is a violation of that person’s civil rights. Even if that “person” is Disney.

“It is a violation of the First Amendment for the government to punish a corporation because of the company’s expressed viewpoints on political issues,” says Adam Winkler, a constitutional law specialist at UCLA School of Law and the author of We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights. “I think that we will see legal challenges to this. And I think there will be constitutional challenges to it.”

Florida might argue that Disney doesn’t have a right to a special tax privilege that other companies don’t receive. But under Supreme Court precedent from 1972, the government cannot rescind a privilege once granted for improper reasons such as retaliation for political speech. And Disney’s actions—both its statements and its decision to pause its donations—are protected First Amendment activity.

Over the last century, the Supreme Court has extended civil rights to corporations, insulating them from government reprisal for exercising those rights. It wasn’t long ago that Republicans were cheering this trend. “Corporations are people,” Mitt Romney famously said as a presidential candidate in 2012. The party also helped usher in the era of massive corporate political giving with the US Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, which secured corporations’ rights as political donors under the First Amendment, and backed the Hobby Lobby decision, which recognized some corporations’ religious beliefs. These rulings had significant downsides for American democracy. 

“There is the irony that conservatives for the last 20 years have been emphasizing that corporations have rights too and should be able to spend money to influence electoral politics,” notes Winkler. “And yet, now they’re trying to punish a company for trying to influence politics.”

Interestingly, it shows something progressives have often not discussed, too. Other Supreme Court rulings on corporate rights, including the landmark press freedom case New York Times Company v. Sullivan, have helped maintain democratic norms. Autocrats use their control over the private sector to wield power, erode democracy, and stifle protest. But because of rulings like Citizens United Disney at least has the option to fight back on constitutional grounds.

“This whole situation highlights one of the hidden benefits of recognizing corporations to have rights, that corporate rights also serve as a check on government tyranny,” says Winkler. “If corporations did not have rights, then the government could run roughshod over corporations, and restrict their freedom of speech and profoundly hurt and harm democracy.” 

Disney may have crossed DeSantis. But it’s DeSantis who crossed the line.

https://www.motherjones.com/mojo-wire/2022/04/desantis-dont-say-gay-republicans-florida/
Kinda shows how far Ur Fascists have come in a very short time….

 

Sol Rosenberg

Girthy Member
94,337
11,849
Earth
E200D633-DA7E-4E9E-B820-3B8655029D8D.jpeg
 


 
Last edited by a moderator:

130lights

Super Anarchist
1,143
654
Lake Michigan
You having fun here?
If not, I would disappear.

Driving I75 in D between the Rouge Bridge and downtown, 2 lanes, no shoulders, under construction, 3 dudes were sitting on the cement barrier wall just passing time, no more than a foot from the traffic.  On 96, raining, slick pavement, a dude runs across the freeway.  Welcome to the D.

 

badlatitude

Super Anarchist
30,436
5,613
Interesting analysis of DeStupid Disney  (found on Facebook)


WFTV reporter Nick Papantonis posted the info below on his Twitter account. Papantonis was the recipient of a Regional Edward R. Murrow Award for investigative reporting in 2020. 

"There’s a lot of misinformation and confusion about what the end of Disney’s Reedy Creek district means for the company and for taxpayers. Here’s what I know, after talking to lobbyists, lawyers and tax officials: 

For those of you who haven’t heard, Reedy Creek is the special tax district of Walt Disney World. It’s essentially its own city. Disney pays taxes to Reedy Creek, which operates a fire department, planning department, sewer treatment plant and public works department. Disney controls Reedy Creek, which means if they want to build a new hotel or highway, they just have to ask themselves for permission. 

The biggest loss for Disney is the end of that control. It’s a lot easier to ask yourself for permission than to go to the county. While they already follow all laws and building codes and they’ll still get everything they want, it’s going to slow the process down. Potholes might develop on roads that they no longer pave themselves. They can’t just call a meeting or alter their comprehensive plan on a random Friday. They also can’t quickly finance new public projects like a fire station. 

The bigger issue for everyone else is the tax revenue. Disney already pays the same local property taxes as every other landowner. Reedy Creek added its own tax on top of that to pay for its projects. That tax – $163 million per year – is illegal outside of the district. When Reedy Creek goes away, that tax goes away, and Orange and Osceola Counties can’t do anything to get it back. 

However, the counties will now be responsible for all of the services Reedy Creek provides and all of the debt it has accumulated. They can’t raise sales taxes or impact fees. So, the counties will have to raise property taxes to make up the difference. They must tax every property equally – not just Disney – and therefore it’s expected that property taxes in Orange County will rise as much as 25% next June. Osceola, much smaller and less wealthy, is still working on its figures.
 

Lawyers largely agree that the state followed all the laws while doing this. They agree Disney may sue, but probably doesn’t have much ground to stand on. Some believe a vote of residents or delegates from the district is required to make this legal. That doesn’t appear to be the case here because a vote was never held to implement the district 55 years ago. 

Essentially, Disney will lose some control of its property, and get a $163 million per year tax break and ~$1 billion of debt passed onto taxpayers. Some things will be negotiated – Disney still controls Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista, two actual towns within RCID. Lawmakers might backtrack from this plan during the next session now that they’re realizing what they’ve done. However, aside from maybe taking away the company’s ability to build a nuclear plant, we have yet to hear how this benefits Florida and especially the local residents in any way. 

The residents, by the way, had no say in this vote, no say in their property taxes going through the roof, and no desire to have their communities staring at financial ruin thanks to 72 hours of orchestrated revenge." 

https://www.wftv.com/news/local/end-reedy-creek-disney-wont-pay-more-taxes-you-will/3TK6ASNJT5EXHICW3DQ3ZHEZYA/

Holy crap, a 25% rise in property taxes could ruin a lot of people.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mrleft8

Super Anarchist
26,650
3,748
Suwanee River
 


Holy crap, a 25% rise in property taxes could ruin a lot of people.
Trump will take care of it. He likes the uneducated, and cloven hoofed ones.... It's like clean coal, and the steel industry! It's going to be Bigly! The jobs will come back like flies to sh..... Um.... Trump brand steaks!

 




Top