Disney Sued Over "Don't Say Gay" Response After Months of Backlash - Inside the Magic

Comments for Disney Sued Over “Don’t Say Gay” Response After Months of Backlash

Disney rainbow balloons at a Pride parade.

Credit: Disney Parks Blog


  1. Disney jumping on the bandwagon or lies “Don’t say Gay” cost them and investors. Why would anyone be for taking away a child’s innocence? Disney sells forever childhood; it just didn’t make sense. Investors should be suing. A minority group can’t make all the decisions for Disney.

    1. Gary

      Go get them ma-am!

    2. Vicki Mathison

      How does not hating take away anything. You church’s have destroyed more children than any other group.

      1. Gary

        Another Woke!

  2. Dodger

    Disney has endured countless lawsuits over its long history and remains standing. This will be merely a speed bump for them.

    1. J

      If I were suing Disney over this, my goal would not necessarily be to cause them some amount of financial harm. As you’ve said, they’re a big ship, and a few waves won’t sink them. Rather, my goal would be to get a judge – or SCOTUS – to issue a precedent saying that for-profit corporations, owned by shareholders, cannot adopt political stances favored by CEOs or employees (people who are not the owners).

      There is a strong legal argument for that position. The CEO has a fiduciary duty not to the employees of the company, but to the owners – the shareholders. A few angry employees do not suddenly free the CEO of their responsibility to earn profit for the shareholders.

      That being the case, if the shareholders can demonstrate that a political position by the CEO did them financial harm, a judge might conceivably hold that part of a CEO’s fiduciary duty means staying out of politics entirely, or at least not taking positions on specific laws. After all, alienating half your fan base – and I suspect that “conservatives with kids who want family-friendly entertainment” is WAY more than half of Disney’s fan base – is a really bad business decision. (As proof I would submit the fact that “Lightyear” and “Strange World” are two of the biggest flops in Disney’s entire history, the latter of which may, after marketing costs are included, may end up losing Disney almost $200 million.)

      So this specific case may merely be a speed bump for Disney, but the precedent set by the case may end up being more like guardrails.

      1. Gary

        Interesting some good lawyer who is also a Walter Elias Disney fan aught to look into this. It with the right new leadership could get Disney back & it would make Walt & Roy very happy. Good going!

        1. Dodger

          Meanwhile, good lawyers on Disney’s side would argue, rightly, that what some call a “political position” is not political at all, but a matter of civil rights or human rights, and that being on the right side of history is ultimately in the interests of the company and its owners. I look forward to those epic court battles.

          1. Gary

            Must be Woke

          2. J

            “Right side of history” is not a legal argument, as you’re no doubt aware. And any argument that Disney makes based on human rights will no doubt be attacked by opposing attorneys on the grounds of inconsistency; Disney had no problem filming the Mulan remake in Xinjiang, and even thanking the government of Xinjiang in the credits, despite the fact that China is committing genocide there literally as we speak.

            As you say, the court battles will definitely be popcorn material.

            1. J

              Let me elaborate a little more on my first statement. I don’t think there’s any attorney worth their hourly rate who would stand up and say “Disney’s position on human rights required them to make a corporate statement taking a position on a specific law, contrary to the shareholders’ best interests.”

              Judge: “Doesn’t the CEO have a fiduciary duty to do what’s in the shareholders’ best interests?”

              Attorney: “Yes, but -”

              Judge: “Does Disney take a position on all laws that have to do with human rights? Did Disney make a corporate statement on the Dobbs decision?”

              Attorney: “No, your honor.”

              Judge: “Has Disney made a statement about the human rights situation in Xinjiang, China, where they not only filmed a movie but thanked the provincial government that is committing genocide?”

              Attorney: “No, your honor. But our employees demanded we take a position on the Parental Rights in Education law.”

              Judge: “ALL your employees demanded this?”

              Attorney: “No, your honor.”

              Judge: “Don’t many of your employees, in fact, support the law that Disney issued a statement denouncing?”

              Attorney: “Yes, your honor.”

              Judge: “And this statement, this position against the law, lost Disney’s shareholders money and continues to lose them money to this day?”

              Attorney: “Yes, your honor.”

              Judge: “Get out of my sight.”

              1. 💯 Absolutely!

            2. N E

              Perfectly stated.

      2. S Nogg

        Interestingly, Citizens United says corporations are people (go figure…a conservative leaning SCOTUS) so that would mean such a ruling would infringe Disney’s First Amendment rights.🤷🏻‍♀️

      3. S Nogg

        Interestingly, Citizens United says corporations are people (go figure…a conservative leaning SCOTUS) so that would mean such a ruling would infringe Disney’s First Amendment rights.🤷🏻‍♀️

        Also, this has not alienated half the fan base, as much as you would like it to be true.

        And for those using the tire “woke” excuse, do you realize that it means “becoming aware of social and economic injustices and working to correct them”? I can’t imagine going on public record saying your against that.

        1. J

          I touched on this elsewhere, but “corporations are people” means that they can do things which are IN the best interest of the shareholders, not that they can do things which are AGAINST the best interest of the shareholders (the owners of the company). Citizens United doesn’t free a CEO of their fiduciary responsibility.

          Your middle sentence is really just wishful thinking. The USA is pretty much split down the middle between conservatives and liberals. If a corporation takes a hard stance on one side or the other, they AUTOMATICALLY alienate half their potential customers. And, in Disney’s case specifically, liberals are 41% less likely to have kids than conservatives are, according to a study published by Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center – which means that a company which creates children’s entertainment risks alienating the demographic that’s way more likely to actually have children!

          So…nothing you posted makes sense.

        2. michael

          Oh please! We have been going back to WDW every year for 30 years. Sometimes twice & we’re from out of state. Even got married there. This was our last year for health reasons & differing moral & political views. We were treated even better this last time by CMs than “back in the day”. What we will not miss is the “guests’ nastiness towards the staff & each other!!! At least twice a day we saw grown persons yelling at & cussing out (in front of their own children) young employees for the smallest things. Shame on them!!!

  3. Mike

    Haha, that’s what they get for having a few goofy higher ups who just had to get involved where they don’t belong. Companies who remain apolitical will always prosper while companies that insist on getting involved in ridiculous beliefs will always suffer and investors shouldn’t have to deal with that.

  4. Kurt

    Corporations are people, remember?

    1. J

      Tell me you completely misunderstood the point of “Citizens United” without telling me you completely misunderstood the point of “Citizens United.”

      In the “Citizens United” case, SCOTUS held that corporations could petition the government for things that were IN the best interest of their shareholders (the owners of the corporation). In this instance, we had Bob Chapek doing something that was AGAINST the best interest of the shareholders – assuming a political stance, not a business stance, which ended up costing the company hundreds of millions of dollars in actual box office receipts and perhaps untold billions in corporate goodwill.

      The two situations really could not be more opposite.

  5. Jarvis

    Don’t put this countries’ future in the hands of blue haired, tattooed, woke, sex confused mentally ill women. They only want death and destruction.

    1. Bridget Langley-Broadwell

      Jarvis, it’s not just women. Biden has done some unbelievable acts while he has been in office and I think he identifies as a man, just saying.

  6. Kathryn Taylor

    Stop calling it Don’t Say Gay Act. By keep naming it what it is NOT is the reason for the lawsuit. People actually think it is about not saying the word gay when it has to do with strangers teaching our most vulnerable children about sex.

    1. Bridget Langley-Broadwell

      Absolutely! So many people argue the bill and call it that, yet not one single one will take the time to read it. Stupid is as stupid does.

  7. Stephanie de Almeida

    Companies need to stay out of the political arena. Period.

    1. Gary

      Thank you Kathryn and Stephanie!

    2. Absolutely right J!

  8. Bridget Langley-Broadwell

    The bill was only “named” this in order to cause chaos and havoc and I say this because of my frustration in it UNTIL I actually read the bill. I wonder what these chaos causers are going to do when everyone’s (including their own) rights are taken away and given to the government.

  9. Gary

    Keep after them ladies, help get my Cousin’s Company back on track without Woke and agenda gone for good.

Comments are closed.