The fundamental concept here is that Disney is a business and there was no business justification for picking a fight with the state government on any issue not directly related to business. PERIOD.
Even if Disney can win a fight (somewhat doubtful that they can), what is the business justification for getting in a fight in the first place? Moral / social issues are important but not to the point that the organization damages its substantive ability to function.
Why do they need a business reason? Plenty of companies on both sides of the aisle have made political statements before, it isn’t something that requires justification. And appealing to a segment of their staff/audience is a business justification in itself (whether or not they misjudged the backlash is a separate question)
Victor, I would suggest reading the Constitution, The right to free speech is not limited to only those with a business justification. This is another clear example of not knowing what the Constitution protects. And finally, it can be argued that Moral / Social issues are MORE important than a substantive ability to function.
Losing hundreds of LGBT+ and ally employees would damage its substantive ability to function, which is why it’s no coincidence that Disney came out against the “Don’t Say Gay” law shortly after said employees staged a walkout. Furthermore, Disney offers wedding services that are incredibly popular among the LGBT community, and they must consider the rather substantial loss of income should the LGBT community cold shoulder them in that arena.
On top of THAT, making a statement against a law is CONSITUTIONALLY FORBIDDEN from making this kind of impact on a business. DeSantis has OUTRIGHT STATED that this attack is directly due to Disney’s statement, and Republican lawmakers outright stated, IN WRITING, that all Disney had to do to avoid this was recant the statement. That is 100%, carved in stone, ILLEGAL retaliation. Illegal retaliation is not something that is generally considered when making a business decision, because it’s, you know, ILLEGAL.
And finally, a failure to consider social or moral issues in business is a good way to wind up with company scrip, child labor, and an eventual economic collapse. On the other hand, considering social and moral issues has in fact been repeatedly proven to MAKE money for a company, through varied effects such as increased employee loyalty (there y refucing the general hemorrhaging of funds that is training from high turnover), increased spending on products by consumers, and even healthier and therefore more productive employees. Businesses should do MORE to consider social and moral issues, not LESS, because *gasp and shock!* THEY EXIST WITHIN A SOCIETY! Not a difficult concept, here.
LGBTwhatever make up only 7.1% of the population. We have a case of the tail wagging the dog.
1) Every LGBTQ person is alive because two heterosexual individuals got together and procreated them.
2) LGBTQ individuals can’t fulfill one of the basic drives in humans, and in fact all living creatures, that is reproducing. AND DON”T EVEN THINK OF MENTIONING PREGNANT TRANSMALES !!! TOTAL BS !!
3) If you’re born XX or XY you will die XX or XY !!! Birth DNA CANNOT be changed !!!
These facts alone prove that the behavior isn’t normal !
4) All indications are that HIV/AIDS started in the gay community. 54% of the identified AIDS cases are within the gay community, or from non-normal sexual encounters.
I don’t want that community to have it’s basic rights denied. But if Disney wants to have 50% of its content be LGBTQ characters, then they are FORCING that behavior on children. (7 times the representation in the general population.)
The biggest problem is that it’s clear that Disney is being punished for disagreeing with the party in power. There’s arguments to be made for dissolving reedy creek, but those arguments weren’t why the law was passed. The author said that it’s usually tough to prove motive, but this might be an exception.
I think we can hypothesize that is what happened ( and it probably did ) but proving that in a court of law is another thing .
Personally I don’t think it was wise for Disney as a family entertainment company to insert itself in opposing a law that is designed to seek out parental permission as to what sort of sex education their children receive and at what age they receive it .
It would be even more unwise and damaging for them to pursue this matter further in the courts .
there is always DeSantis’s statements that he was going to punish Disney made publicly and in his fundraising letter on the day he signed the bill. And his statement when he called the legislature back into session. That will make it clear
We’re not fond of big, greedy corporations. We’re just LESS fond of authoritarian and blatant violations of the Constitution that strongly remind us of the advent of the vast majority of dictatorships. So we’re not suddenly loving Disney. We just hate Republicans worse.
You know, what with Disney more or less skirting the edges of law rather than openly violating them.
I am definitely not an expert but the excerpt from the constitution is referring to congress making laws – not a state government. Perhaps there are other laws that would be at issue.
There is that pesky 14th Amendment that made the Bill of Rights apply to the states. I would suggest reading the equal protection clause. It is clear that you do not have an understanding of the Constitution.
First it is not and never was the Don’t say gay bill. Read it….
I have. Stop spreading a false narrative. Second he has wanted to pull this special privilege clause for years. It was so they could build Walts EPCOT which did not get built.
… really, when DeSantis himself has used the word “retaliation” to describe this attack on Disney, and Republican lawma IN WRITING said Disney could avoid it by recanting their statement, how can it be that hard to prove the openly stated truth in court?
I know several people who work at Disney that absolutely do not agree with a few leaders. Why would anyone support the teaching of 4 to 8 year olds about sex and sexual orientation. Honesty, only a sick person or a pedophile would support something like that…
Comments for Constitution Expert Weighs In on Whether Disney’s Rights Have Been Violated
Victor Nazarian
The fundamental concept here is that Disney is a business and there was no business justification for picking a fight with the state government on any issue not directly related to business. PERIOD.
Even if Disney can win a fight (somewhat doubtful that they can), what is the business justification for getting in a fight in the first place? Moral / social issues are important but not to the point that the organization damages its substantive ability to function.
Tom Krausse
Why do they need a business reason? Plenty of companies on both sides of the aisle have made political statements before, it isn’t something that requires justification. And appealing to a segment of their staff/audience is a business justification in itself (whether or not they misjudged the backlash is a separate question)
Robin ofloxly
A corporation is a piece of paper. It is the people within the corporation making the statement.
Scott Lee-Ross
No, a corporation is a legal person. And thanks to Citizens United, it has been clarified that a corporation has its own right to free speech.
Scott Lee-Ross
Victor, I would suggest reading the Constitution, The right to free speech is not limited to only those with a business justification. This is another clear example of not knowing what the Constitution protects. And finally, it can be argued that Moral / Social issues are MORE important than a substantive ability to function.
Hillary C
Read the Constitution is the new “Read the bill”
Vlm
Losing hundreds of LGBT+ and ally employees would damage its substantive ability to function, which is why it’s no coincidence that Disney came out against the “Don’t Say Gay” law shortly after said employees staged a walkout. Furthermore, Disney offers wedding services that are incredibly popular among the LGBT community, and they must consider the rather substantial loss of income should the LGBT community cold shoulder them in that arena.
On top of THAT, making a statement against a law is CONSITUTIONALLY FORBIDDEN from making this kind of impact on a business. DeSantis has OUTRIGHT STATED that this attack is directly due to Disney’s statement, and Republican lawmakers outright stated, IN WRITING, that all Disney had to do to avoid this was recant the statement. That is 100%, carved in stone, ILLEGAL retaliation. Illegal retaliation is not something that is generally considered when making a business decision, because it’s, you know, ILLEGAL.
And finally, a failure to consider social or moral issues in business is a good way to wind up with company scrip, child labor, and an eventual economic collapse. On the other hand, considering social and moral issues has in fact been repeatedly proven to MAKE money for a company, through varied effects such as increased employee loyalty (there y refucing the general hemorrhaging of funds that is training from high turnover), increased spending on products by consumers, and even healthier and therefore more productive employees. Businesses should do MORE to consider social and moral issues, not LESS, because *gasp and shock!* THEY EXIST WITHIN A SOCIETY! Not a difficult concept, here.
Dan F.
LGBTwhatever make up only 7.1% of the population. We have a case of the tail wagging the dog.
1) Every LGBTQ person is alive because two heterosexual individuals got together and procreated them.
2) LGBTQ individuals can’t fulfill one of the basic drives in humans, and in fact all living creatures, that is reproducing. AND DON”T EVEN THINK OF MENTIONING PREGNANT TRANSMALES !!! TOTAL BS !!
3) If you’re born XX or XY you will die XX or XY !!! Birth DNA CANNOT be changed !!!
These facts alone prove that the behavior isn’t normal !
4) All indications are that HIV/AIDS started in the gay community. 54% of the identified AIDS cases are within the gay community, or from non-normal sexual encounters.
I don’t want that community to have it’s basic rights denied. But if Disney wants to have 50% of its content be LGBTQ characters, then they are FORCING that behavior on children. (7 times the representation in the general population.)
Jarvis
The left usually hates big, greedy corporations and the perks they get. Except, now, if it is THEIR greedy corporation, then it’s fine.
Tom Krausse
The biggest problem is that it’s clear that Disney is being punished for disagreeing with the party in power. There’s arguments to be made for dissolving reedy creek, but those arguments weren’t why the law was passed. The author said that it’s usually tough to prove motive, but this might be an exception.
drewwho
I think we can hypothesize that is what happened ( and it probably did ) but proving that in a court of law is another thing .
Personally I don’t think it was wise for Disney as a family entertainment company to insert itself in opposing a law that is designed to seek out parental permission as to what sort of sex education their children receive and at what age they receive it .
It would be even more unwise and damaging for them to pursue this matter further in the courts .
Scott Lee-Ross
there is always DeSantis’s statements that he was going to punish Disney made publicly and in his fundraising letter on the day he signed the bill. And his statement when he called the legislature back into session. That will make it clear
Vlm
We’re not fond of big, greedy corporations. We’re just LESS fond of authoritarian and blatant violations of the Constitution that strongly remind us of the advent of the vast majority of dictatorships. So we’re not suddenly loving Disney. We just hate Republicans worse.
You know, what with Disney more or less skirting the edges of law rather than openly violating them.
Joe F
I am definitely not an expert but the excerpt from the constitution is referring to congress making laws – not a state government. Perhaps there are other laws that would be at issue.
Scott Lee-Ross
There is that pesky 14th Amendment that made the Bill of Rights apply to the states. I would suggest reading the equal protection clause. It is clear that you do not have an understanding of the Constitution.
Jeffrey P
First it is not and never was the Don’t say gay bill. Read it….
I have. Stop spreading a false narrative. Second he has wanted to pull this special privilege clause for years. It was so they could build Walts EPCOT which did not get built.
Dan F.
Vlm, Better reread that bill. There is nothing in it that states, “Don’t say gay.”
Vlm
… really, when DeSantis himself has used the word “retaliation” to describe this attack on Disney, and Republican lawma IN WRITING said Disney could avoid it by recanting their statement, how can it be that hard to prove the openly stated truth in court?
Robin ofloxly
I know several people who work at Disney that absolutely do not agree with a few leaders. Why would anyone support the teaching of 4 to 8 year olds about sex and sexual orientation. Honesty, only a sick person or a pedophile would support something like that…
Bj
Didn’t the bill revoke all special districts created before 1968? If so it was not technically aimed solely at Disney.
Comments are closed.