Disney sues Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis over loss of special district

States can make any laws they want that aren't in violation of federal law. Your poison pill question has zero to do with this. Disney had a legal benefit, then the law changed, and now they are operating like every other business in the state. Targeting them would have been something like making them pay more taxes just because they are Disney, that's illegal, and not the case here.

 

They are not though, numerous other companies still retain special districts.

My question isn’t a poison pill — it just highlights it takes some major cognitive dissonance to defend this.

The state targeted Disney due to their speech.
This is undeniable

edited to add: and for the record, I would oppose this if it was a conservative company as well. Had states tried to harm Goya when they started getting political

People, citizens — should be able to punish companies for their speech. Not the government

 

Law says different, sorry. Now who are all these other businesses that have the same benefits Disney had in florida?

 

The law doesn’t say different…

This single trump appointed judge couldn’t even rule on the merits, he had to say they lacked standing.

If it gets ruled on the merits we will likely see a different outcome

As to your question
https://www.floridajobs.org/communi...ty-program/official-list-of-special-districts

Daytona Speedway is likely the best known, the Village Center Community Development District is another very large one.

Disney definitely had the largest, but it was far from “special”.

 

It is not a matter of force, but of seduction

 

You're still conflating Reedy Creek and Disney. They are not the same. And nobody has a right to control a private government created via a legislative action. But, if you have control of a private government, you shouldn't piss off the lawmakers who control that legislative action. If DeSantis went in and acted without the legislature, they'd have had a stronger case. But everything was done legally.

 

They are not like every other business in the state. Several still have the special district status.

 

Amazing you admit why they were singled out, and actually seem to support this sort of punishing free speech through punitive legislation?

 

Disney loses.

Thats good for America.

 

I don't support being vindictive jerks. What I am saying is that this isn't illegal. The legislature can change the law. The federal courts cannot overrule a state legislature here. The courts picking and choosing which state laws they want to shut down because a business "feels" targeted is a dangerous line to cross... especially when the business admitted to the judge that the law didn't target them directly and impacted all businesses in a given business district. Disney's legal arguments in federal court were largely laughable because they were avoiding the most direct legal arguments due to it being obvious they were not going to win using these arguments. Their defenders are morally outraged, but the law often allows for people to have their feelings hurt.

Which is why I'll say again, it was foolish for Disney to go to war with the entire state government of Florida. They had something no other company I can think of had and it was a privilege granted to Reedy Creek by the state government. It was not a right.

 

How? Please explain.

 

You just admitted the state penalized them for their speech and you are fine with it because you don’t like the company.

What has the Republican Party turned into?

 

This isn’t true through — there are almost 2 thousand special districts in the state. The only one impacted was Disney’s

Now if FL had dissolved them all you would have a point — but they didn’t. They specifically targeted Disney.

And why did they do that? Because they dared to speak against the government.

And you seem to be perfectly fine with that.

 

You promote sexual device as cool and attractive.

 

By electing someone on their third marriage as president?

 

You're still sort of conflating things. You're using common speech to describe a legal action. A penalty means something different in the eyes of the law. Words like penalty, retaliation, etc have slightly different meaning in this context. Those are your words, not mine.

Here's another example, since the other ones fell on deaf ears. Social media companies inserted themselves into politics. They banned conservative speech, news stories that benefited their candidates, etc. Many members of Congress are pissed and want to regulate them to prevent because they oppose what they did with their "speech." They got a lot of complaints from their constituents to regulate them. Congress has the right to pass a law to regulate them because they're upset with what they had been doing. The President has a right to sign it even if he called for regulation to occur. Jack Dorsey, or whoever was running Twitter at the time, can't cry to the courts that they were targeted for their political views/speech. And in this example, Congress would be directly regulating their business and not a governing board. Florida didn't even regulate Disney directly. And their regulation effected everyone in that sector, just like if Congress passes a social media law. And this example is also federal action in federal court. There's no boundary of the federal government stepping on the toes of a state legislature passing a constitutional law.

If social media companies eventually see more regulation I'd say the same thing. It's vindictive, and they shouldn't have pissed off half of America and half of Congress by censuring Americans and telling Congress and Americans to go F themselves when they were upset.

 

You think divorce is deviant?

 

I think repeatedly cheating on then trading in for a younger model is.

 

Except all social media companies would be governed the same — that is simply regulation.

Disney was the only entity target by the government and it was done so because of their speech

 

All companies in that segment are being governed the same. That was the whole point. It doesn't only effect Disney.

 

Can you name all the other companies that were impacted? And why were almost 1800 of them left unchanged?

 

Can you name every social media website? It's irrelevant. That's the point. The social media law would be in response to the companies whose speech they disagreed with, but it would impact all companies in that segment.

I'm sorry, but you're never going to convince me that Disney has a right to create and regulate their own building codes because some politicians were upset they protested against parental rights. That's not the law. You may find it unfair, but the law is not always what everyone agrees is "fair."

 

Lol, such a cop out. This bill only targeted Reedy Creek. How about this. Can you name a single other company that this impacted?

Just one?

Yet you don’t have an issue with Daytona Speedway or the Village Center Community Development District. Or any of the other almost 2,000 special districts around the state.

I do find it unfair, because I don’t believe government should use its power to target private businesses for daring to speak against them.

But conservatives seem to disagree, which is fine
But don’t act like this was done for any other reason than to punish speech they (and you) did not like.

 

Actually, the US legal system said so. I guess I just got to be the first in a 12 page thread to point it out?

Why not both?

 

I can name a couple shell companies, Tomahawk and the Ranch, but only because I remember them from the lawsuit. But, it's irrelevant. I have no idea about their history without looking into them.

I don't have an issue with Disney either. You keep bringing up straw men arguments over and over again. Reedy Creek is 25,000 acres. It's a large mass of land. Comparing it to a race track without even looking into what control they have is nonsensical.

I've said repeatedly that this was the legislature responding to Disney's insertion into politics. I've said this several times in this conversation. What I've also said is that the judge got the correct ruling in the eyes of the law. All you've done is complain in a hyperbolic sense of empathy for Disney because they can't create their own building codes, environmental regulations, and zoning approvals anymore. They might have to ask for approval to rezone land like every other business in the world? Oh, cry me a river. They still have a very good thing going for them in Florida that they would not have elsewhere. They are not entitled to create their own building codes simply because they pissed off some politicians. Pissed-off politicians pass a lot of laws. In fact, anger and hostility are the basis for many laws being passed. It's legal. The federal courts can't overrule that unless there was a clear constitutional or federal law being violated.