BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Lawyers on here say it's legal to penalize a business by removing a privilege other theme parks don't have, even in the case of clear retaliation.

---

That is not correct. Even if a legal action, it's unconstitutional if done as retaliation for someone exercising free speech.

Courts will defer to government as to what that "reason" is. So tough case for Disney to win.

---

So if Disney can prove retaliation, they win? If Fuhr courts defer to government for the reason, the government has already publicly said the reason was Disney's public "campaign" against a particular bill labeled the "don't say gay" by opponents.

aggiehawg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Now, if Universal studios has a similar privledge, then the state seems to be ****ed. But I have no idea what Universal's deal is either.

---

Universal asked for it. Andrew (Legal Mindset) worked on trying to get that deal for them too.
No go.

---

Go to 9 minute 30 minute mark. Universal went to the state legislature to ask if they could get a deal like Reedy and the state lege said, "Hell, f***ing no. We're never going to do that again."

---

No doubt this is part of why DeSantis could pull this off. There is a LOT of resentment of Disney within the political establishment, other companies, and with the People of Florida. They have thrown their weight around for decades and are used to getting everything they want. That's why you see some Democrats supporting DeSantis on this, people don't like feeling like a company can bully them. They just went a bridge too far with the Parental Notification Bill and are paying the price.

Now you can call it what you will but in the end DeSantis understood how to use his leverage the right way here. He picked the right issue and the right company to make an example out of them and it is making a lot of folks scream but he knew exactly what he was doing and how to do it.

It's going to be fun as people try to "nail" DeSantis on this in interviews btw, he is going to force them to say they are for grooming, porn in schools, and $200 Billion corporations being able to set policy on matters that have nothing to do with their business. He has the high ground, he's extremely well versed on the topics at hand, and he is excellent at communication. Good luck.

Quote:

---

So if Disney can prove retaliation, they win? If Fuhr courts defer to government for the reason, the government has already publicly said the reason was Disney's public "campaign" against a particular bill labeled the "don't say gay" by opponents.

---

Number one: Retaliation applies in employment law. Whichever authorities they derived, they derived from the state

Number two: Disney is not a member of a protected class. They were singularly protected but abused that system for decades and decades. They are not a victim of any entity other than themselves. They have been poor stewards and have alienated their neighboring areas and the Flrida public at large with how overbearing, arrogant and obnoxious they have used their singular powers to benefit only them and not anyone else.

This dispute was NEVER about the 1st Amendment.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

So if Disney can prove retaliation, they win? If Fuhr courts defer to government for the reason, the government has already publicly said the reason was Disney's public "campaign" against a particular bill labeled the "don't say gay" by opponents.

---

Number one: Retaliation applies in employment law. Whichever authorities they derived, they derived from the state

Number two: Disney is not a member of a protected class. They were singularly protected but abused that system for decades and decades. They are not a victim of any entity other than themselves. They have been poor stewards and have alienated their neighboring areas and the Flrida public at large with how overbearing, arrogant and obnoxious they have used their singular powers to benefit only them and not anyone else.

This dispute was NEVER about the 1st Amendment.

---

So, is this incorrect?

Quote:

---

That is not correct. Even if a legal action, it's unconstitutional if done as retaliation for someone exercising free speech.

---

Quote:

---

No doubt this is part of why DeSantis could pull this off. There is a LOT of resentment of Disney within the political establishment, other companies, and with the People of Florida. They have thrown their weight around for decades and are used to getting everything they want. That's why you see some Democrats supporting DeSantis on this, people don't like feeling like a company can bully them. They just went a bridge too far with the Parental Notification Bill and are paying the price.

---

And DeSantis used their own arrogance against them. He baited them and they took the hook too.

Not following your post here.

Retaliation does come up in the first amendment context. Disney does not have to be in a protected class to claim the government infringed on its first amendment rights.

To be clear, I am not saying that Florida did anything wrong. But if the government takes away a property right and the reason is because of something, you said, that is a violation of the first amendment.

There are many issues in this case, including whether the special district was a property right

Science Denier said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

So if Disney can prove retaliation, they win? If Fuhr courts defer to government for the reason, the government has already publicly said the reason was Disney's public "campaign" against a particular bill labeled the "don't say gay" by opponents.

---

Number one: Retaliation applies in employment law. Whichever authorities they derived, they derived from the state

Number two: Disney is not a member of a protected class. They were singularly protected but abused that system for decades and decades. They are not a victim of any entity other than themselves. They have been poor stewards and have alienated their neighboring areas and the Flrida public at large with how overbearing, arrogant and obnoxious they have used their singular powers to benefit only them and not anyone else.

This dispute was NEVER about the 1st Amendment.

---

So, is this incorrect?

Quote:

---

That is not correct. Even if a legal action, it's unconstitutional if done as retaliation for someone exercising free speech.

---

---

In these circumstances, yes. The use of "retaliation" does not apply here.

Her post does not say anything that contradicts mine.


What I posted is correct. now, whether it applies in this situation is a different story. I was posting as a general proposition of law, to explain why you were incorrect above

Quote:

---

To be clear, I am not saying that Florida did anything wrong. But if the government takes away a property right and the reason is because of something, you said, that is a violation of the first amendment.

---

Not a property "right" first off. HOA's cannot enforce their restrictive covenants against state and local entities. Nor would anyone in their right minds want them too.

Reedy had powers granted to them by the state as a privilege, not a right that the state "acknowledged." They abuse that privilege repeatedly over decades.

Want the evidence? Every other theme park that tried to get the same status was turned down flat. Why?

Because Disney screwed up.

As I said, whether it's a property right is one of the issues in the case. But there are cases where a "privilege" can be a property right because of contracts with the state. I don't know anything about the terms etc so can't say either way. But I'd guess State has a good case.

I don't see this one resolving any time soon. Lots of eggheads are going to bill this one through the roof.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

So if Disney can prove retaliation, they win? If Fuhr courts defer to government for the reason, the government has already publicly said the reason was Disney's public "campaign" against a particular bill labeled the "don't say gay" by opponents.

---

Number one: Retaliation applies in employment law. Whichever authorities they derived, they derived from the state

Number two: Disney is not a member of a protected class. They were singularly protected but abused that system for decades and decades. They are not a victim of any entity other than themselves. They have been poor stewards and have alienated their neighboring areas and the Flrida public at large with how overbearing, arrogant and obnoxious they have used their singular powers to benefit only them and not anyone else.

This dispute was NEVER about the 1st Amendment.

---

https://www.rightslitigation.com/practice-areas/constitutional-rights/first-amendment-retaliation/

https://www.voanews.com/amp/florida-battles-disney-world-over-don-t-say-gay-bill/6541446.html

Quote:

---

However, of the more than 1,800 special districts that have been created within Florida, Disney's is the only one affected by the legislation.

---

Are there 1,800 of these special districts in Florida? Hold that add to the evidence that Disney is being singled out for retaliation?

Quote:

---

Are there 1,800 of these special districts in Florida? Hold that add to the evidence that Disney is being singled out for retaliation?

---

No.

Reedy was the only one.

People who defend Disney in this instance are either uninformed or pro a certain agenda. Most just the latter.

I'm on Team DeSantis on this fight, and definitely fall in the "ignorant of the background facts" on this one!

I thought there were lots of special districts, but Disney is the only theme park with one. Is that correct? Thanks in advance!

I am pretty sure that Reedy was the only one that had such broad self governance. There are a bunch of special taxation districts that are allowed to reinvest the taxes on improvements within the district. But I think only Disneys was given broad powers to take over functions that would have otherwise been handled by the loca city or county.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Are there 1,800 of these special districts in Florida? Hold that add to the evidence that Disney is being singled out for retaliation?

---

No.

Reedy was the only one.

People who defend Disney in this instance are either uninformed or pro a certain agenda. Most just the latter.

---

I'm a Trump supporter, but have nothing against DeSantis. I'm trying to understand the law. I also hate BS narratives by the left and am understand what is retaliation and what governments can and can't do to a business.

Thanks!

Im Gipper said:

---

I'm on Team DeSantis on this fight, and definitely fall in the "ignorant of the background facts" on this one!

I thought there were lots of special districts, but Disney is the only theme park with one. Is that correct? Thanks in advance!

---

Check out Legal Mindset on his youtube channel. He was very familar with the operations of Reedy Creek. In this short clip he breaks down the problems with Disney's federal suit.

DeSantis covered his bases and this is a very difficult argument to go against:

DeSantis on ending Disney’s corporate kingdom: “Why should one corporation govern itself — be exempt from laws? It’s the most egregious type of corporate welfare” pic.twitter.com/bI5w1tBfW9

— DeSantis War Room 🐊 (@DeSantisWarRoom) May 7, 2023

I feel like this is more about Desantis defending Floridians against the "war" Disney is waging than the reverse.

Im Gipper said:

---

I'm on Team DeSantis on this fight, and definitely fall in the "ignorant of the background facts" on this one!

I thought there were lots of special districts, but Disney is the only theme park with one. Is that correct? Thanks in advance!

---

Sea World in Florida is a special district

Universal Orlando sits in a portion of a special district.

If I'm remembering correctly, the theme parks in Tampa aren't in a special district.

My uncle lives in the huge residential area called The Villages. It is a special district.

Daytona 500 racing area is in a special district

There are so many special districts in Florida that it is hard to keep up with.

txags92 said:

---

I am pretty sure that Reedy was the only one that had such broad self governance. There are a bunch of special taxation districts that are allowed to reinvest the taxes on improvements within the district. But I think only Disneys was given broad powers to take over functions that would have otherwise been handled by the loca city or county.

---

Hot Springs Village in Arkansas would be a decent comparison to Reedy Creek where essentially all control a County and a Torn / City would normally have were turned over to the land owner / developer and never turned back over to local control.

The situation worked well for Florida for 50+ years which is why it was never changed. Disney stepped in it and DeSantis and the lege are within their powers to push back, but this could / should be solved in a sit down with Disney not in a back and forth public tit for tat, which is not good for both sides and may not result in an overall positive for DeSantis.

Get your best team together and call Iger in to work it out. Release joint statement on resolution and move on. The longer this goes on the less its an issue for Disney and the more its an issue for DeSantis. Just my opinion of course.

halfastros81 said:

---

I feel like this is more about Desantis defending Floridians against the "war" Disney is waging than the reverse.

---

DeSantis is doing this for himself. It started as a way to strengthen his prestige leading up to presidential campaign. The truth is most people in Florida aren't concerned with Disney. More important things to worry about that effect daily lives in Florida- rent increases, homelessness, healthcare prices, insurance prices, food prices, electricity prices, gas prices, etc. Most of us have never met a gay person or seen a drag show or drag queen. So, the problems I listed earlier in this post are a much scarier and more realistic threat to the average Floridian than the gay and drag show type stuff. I feel like taxpayer dollars could be better spent elsewhere on issues that really matter to the people of Florida.

murphyag said:

---

halfastros81 said:

---

I feel like this is more about Desantis defending Floridians against the "war" Disney is waging than the reverse.

---

DeSantis is doing this for himself. It started as a way to strengthen his prestige leading up to presidential campaign. The truth is most people in Florida aren't concerned with Disney. More important things to worry about that effect daily lives in Florida- rent increases, homelessness, healthcare prices, insurance prices, food prices, electricity prices, gas prices, etc. Most of us have never met a gay person or seen a drag show or drag queen. So, the problems I listed earlier in this post are a much scarier and more realistic threat to the average Floridian than the gay and drag show type stuff. I feel like taxpayer dollars could be better spent elsewhere on issues that really matter to the people of Florida.

---

I am thinking your gaydar is broken if you think you have never met a gay person. I can think of at least 5 that I know just from High School, and that was 3 decades ago. Way before it was the in thing.

fka ftc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

I am pretty sure that Reedy was the only one that had such broad self governance. There are a bunch of special taxation districts that are allowed to reinvest the taxes on improvements within the district. But I think only Disneys was given broad powers to take over functions that would have otherwise been handled by the loca city or county.

---

Hot Springs Village in Arkansas would be a decent comparison to Reedy Creek where essentially all control a County and a Torn / City would normally have were turned over to the land owner / developer and never turned back over to local control.

The situation worked well for Florida for 50+ years which is why it was never changed. Disney stepped in it and DeSantis and the lege are within their powers to push back, but this could / should be solved in a sit down with Disney not in a back and forth public tit for tat, which is not good for both sides and may not result in an overall positive for DeSantis.

Get your best team together and call Iger in to work it out. Release joint statement on resolution and move on. The longer this goes on the less it's an issue for Disney and the more it's an issue for DeSantis. Just my opinion of course.

---

… except it's public by design. DeSantis wants it that way.

Jeeper79 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

I am pretty sure that Reedy was the only one that had such broad self governance. There are a bunch of special taxation districts that are allowed to reinvest the taxes on improvements within the district. But I think only Disneys was given broad powers to take over functions that would have otherwise been handled by the loca city or county.

---

Hot Springs Village in Arkansas would be a decent comparison to Reedy Creek where essentially all control a County and a Torn / City would normally have were turned over to the land owner / developer and never turned back over to local control.

The situation worked well for Florida for 50+ years which is why it was never changed. Disney stepped in it and DeSantis and the lege are within their powers to push back, but this could / should be solved in a sit down with Disney not in a back and forth public tit for tat, which is not good for both sides and may not result in an overall positive for DeSantis.

Get your best team together and call Iger in to work it out. Release joint statement on resolution and move on. The longer this goes on the less it's an issue for Disney and the more it's an issue for DeSantis. Just my opinion of course.

---

… except it's public by design. DeSantis wants it that way.

---

Disney could have easily called the governor privately to make their feelings known about the law. They didn't. They made a big deal about objecting to it publicly and emphatically. So whose fault is it that the dispute went public again?

txags92 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

I am pretty sure that Reedy was the only one that had such broad self governance. There are a bunch of special taxation districts that are allowed to reinvest the taxes on improvements within the district. But I think only Disneys was given broad powers to take over functions that would have otherwise been handled by the loca city or county.

---

Hot Springs Village in Arkansas would be a decent comparison to Reedy Creek where essentially all control a County and a Torn / City would normally have were turned over to the land owner / developer and never turned back over to local control.

The situation worked well for Florida for 50+ years which is why it was never changed. Disney stepped in it and DeSantis and the lege are within their powers to push back, but this could / should be solved in a sit down with Disney not in a back and forth public tit for tat, which is not good for both sides and may not result in an overall positive for DeSantis.

Get your best team together and call Iger in to work it out. Release joint statement on resolution and move on. The longer this goes on the less it's an issue for Disney and the more it's an issue for DeSantis. Just my opinion of course.

---

… except it's public by design. DeSantis wants it that way.

---

Disney could have easily called the governor privately to make their feelings known about the law. They didn't. They made a big deal about objecting to it publicly and emphatically. So whose fault is it that the dispute went public again?

---

Companies pick sides like this all the time without repercussions . It's not about having a public opinion. It's about being made a public example.

Agree, Disney made it an issue and deserves what it gets. But DeSantis could end it privately and look better for doing it.

Timeline.

Jeeper79 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

txags92 said:

---

I am pretty sure that Reedy was the only one that had such broad self governance. There are a bunch of special taxation districts that are allowed to reinvest the taxes on improvements within the district. But I think only Disneys was given broad powers to take over functions that would have otherwise been handled by the loca city or county.

---

Hot Springs Village in Arkansas would be a decent comparison to Reedy Creek where essentially all control a County and a Torn / City would normally have were turned over to the land owner / developer and never turned back over to local control.

The situation worked well for Florida for 50+ years which is why it was never changed. Disney stepped in it and DeSantis and the lege are within their powers to push back, but this could / should be solved in a sit down with Disney not in a back and forth public tit for tat, which is not good for both sides and may not result in an overall positive for DeSantis.

Get your best team together and call Iger in to work it out. Release joint statement on resolution and move on. The longer this goes on the less it's an issue for Disney and the more it's an issue for DeSantis. Just my opinion of course.

---

… except it's public by design. DeSantis wants it that way.

---

Disney could have easily called the governor privately to make their feelings known about the law. They didn't. They made a big deal about objecting to it publicly and emphatically. So whose fault is it that the dispute went public again?

---

Companies pick sides like this all the time without repercussions . It's not about having a public opinion. It's about being made a public example.

---

Companies may pick a side, particularly when it is an issue important to the company, or they may express general support for a particular opinion. But Disney actively and aggressively went after DeSantis on an issue that had nothing to do with them. And so yes, they are being made an example of because they stepped out of their lane and forgot how privileged their situation was.

fka ftc said:

---

Agree, Disney made it an issue and deserves what it gets. But DeSantis could end it privately and look better for doing it.

---

If you think Disney wanted to end this quietly and privately you really haven't been paying attention. They started this with a $5 million campaign and have used their influence in the media (they own ABC and ESPN after all for starters) to try to take him down. They lost and lost badly with DeSantis' re-election. Then they pull the last minute stunt with Reedy Creek knowing it would trigger a massive legal battle. DeSantis has said several times he would be willing to work with Disney but they haven't backed down because they think they can win the long game. He knows the legal side of this in detail and understands he has the high ground and he can't capitulate. Disney has assumed DeSantis will cave or his popularity will suffer but neither has happened.

Disney has screwed up politically because they are trying to act like this sweet little innocent company instead of what was a $200 Billion international mega corporation that thinks they can do and say anything they want in Florida because they bring so much revenue to the state. People don't like corporations thinking they can do whatever they want, especially when it is something way outside their lane like Parental Rights.

People that hate DeSantis will hate DeSantis for this. People that think that any business is good business and government should let them do anything they want will hate DeSantis. Outside of that though this is going to end up a W for DeSantis both in practical and political terms. He will win the lawsuit and in the end people will see he took on Disney and kicked them in the nuts when they overstepped instead of making a speech or two and then scurrying away when things got tough.

One thing is for sure though, anyone that thinks DeSantis isn't a "fighter" is an idiot. He truly believes in his position and he is willing to take the flack and battle forward. It's easy to make speeches or promises, it's something else to be willing to truly utilize your power like this knowing that many will cry and scream.

I'm gonna state it once again because most people seem ignorant of the fact or, like the media, choose to downplay this key part..... Disney didn't just say they disagreed with the Parental Rights law. They said they were going to devote themselves to actively working to repeal it. That's a big difference from simply saying you disagree with it. They threw the gauntlet down first and Desantis wasn't afraid to pick it up.

MurphyAg I respect your opinion and understand where you're coming from, but from what you've mentioned about where you live here in Florida, yeah I don't expect those communities to give much thought about the long-term effects of everyday things like what's being taught in schools or immigration. Yeah, those communities are primarily concerned with insurance rates on their vacation homes and condos, etc. and not much else.

Quote:

---

DeSantis has said several times he would be willing to work with Disney but they haven't backed down because they think they can win the long game.

---

Disney's biggest mistake was hiring the wrong lawyers, IMO. Those that are very unfamiliar with Florida laws in such a niche area there.

Oh, and never a good idea for an "independent" special improvement district to hire as their representative counsel, the same guy who is General Counsel for decades, of Disneyworld.

Right now, Disney better hope this blows over and the massive securitites fraud in the bond issuances are not on the radar of the SEC.

It is breathtaking how many First Amendment experts there are on this board. We have videos published by Right Wing Politcial Hacks, claims of Roger Rabbit level mystery fraud that no one can provide a link and key board lawyers stating "Disney doesn't have a case" where virtually every First Amendment Expert across the country say otherwise.