Information We Have Available
Let’s start with what we know. What exactly happened?
From Source 1
a. Florida legislature passed HB 1557, “Parental Rights in Education” which DeSantis signed March 28, 2022
b. The “Parental Rights in Education” law states “Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.
c. On the day the law was enacted, Disney issued a statement, saying: “Our goal as a company is for this law to be repealed by the legislature or struck down in the courts, and we remain committed to supporting national and state organizations working to achieve that.
d. A few weeks later, on April 22, DeSantis signed another bill introduced by Republicans, SB 4-C, terminating independent special districts that were enacted in Florida prior to 1968. That includes the Reedy Creek Improvement District, which effectively allows Walt Disney World to govern itself. Before he made the bill law, DeSantis said of Disney: “You’re a corporation based in Burbank, California, and you’re going to marshal your economic might to attack the parents of my state? We view that as a provocation, and we’re going to fight back against that.”
e. On the day the law was enacted, Disney issued a statement, saying: “Our goal as a company is for this law to be repealed by the legislature or struck down in the courts, and we remain committed to supporting national and state organizations working to achieve that.
f. DeSantis said the Legislature will draft additional legislation clarifying unresolved issues related to dissolving the special districts. The next regular legislative session is not scheduled to begin until March 2023, but DeSantis or the Legislature could convene another special session before then.
From Source 2
a. Disney did not reply to questions asking what happened during the exchange with DeSantis. In early March, Disney CEO Bob Chapek told shareholders that he called DeSantis expressing "disappointment and concern" over the legislation.
b. The schools law goes into effect on July 1 and doesn't contain the word "gay." The governor's office has pointed out that it bans teachings on sexual orientation and gender identity specifically in kindergarten through third grade. But other language in the bill is more vague, banning such instruction "in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate." Critics say it could marginalize LGBTQ+ students, teachers, or children of families from same-sex households, including if teachers happen to be casually discussing spousal or dating relationships while in the classroom.
c. DeSantis said during the Rubin interview that Disney was free to take a position on the bill but "they are not free to force all of us to subsidize their activism, and that's what they were doing."
From Source 3
a. It looks like the Parental Rights bill passed the state house 69-47 and senate 22-17. These are the elected representatives for the state of FL and truly represent the people of Fl on this issue. That is fairly strong support.
From Source 4
a. The total verbiage of the bill is in this source. It is a lot. It is only one paragraph that caused the “uproar.”
From Source 5
a. “Parents’ rights have been increasingly under assault around the nation, but in Florida we stand up for the rights of parents and the fundamental role they play in the education of their children,” said Governor Ron DeSantis. “Parents have every right to be informed about services offered to their child at school, and should be protected from schools using classroom instruction to sexualize their kids as young as 5 years old.”
b. “Parents have a fundamental right to make decisions regarding the upbringing of their children, and schools should not be keeping important information from parents. Children belong to families, not the state,” said Senate President Wilton Simpson. “Parents are not the enemy, they are a child’s first and best advocate. This legislation strengthens the Parents’ Bill of Rights Act, safeguarding the rights and responsibilities of parents to decide how best to raise their children.”
From Source 6
a. While the Left and their media allies have attempted to smear HB 1557 and mischaracterize its intent, our survey shows that Floridians do not agree. They are united in opposition to sexual education and gender identity curriculum being taught to young children in public schools or appearing in children’s TV programming. And there is bipartisan support for making sure corporations follow the same tax rules as everyone else.
b. 61% say that sexual education topics should either not be taught in schools at all, or that they should wait until students are at least 12 years of age.
c. 61% of likely voters say they support Governor DeSantis’s move to require that all corporations be subject to the same taxes across the state. This includes most Republicans and Independents.
From Source 7
a. April 22 (Reuters) - Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on Friday signed a bill that strips Walt Disney Co (DIS.N) of self-governing authority at its Orlando-area parks in retaliation for its opposition to a new law that limits the teaching of LGBTQ issues in schools.
b. The Republican-controlled legislature on Thursday approved the bill, which will eliminate the special governing jurisdiction that allows the company to operate Walt Disney World Resort as its own city. Within the 25,000-acre tract, it operates four theme parks, two water parks and 175 miles of roadway.
c. Disney's special status "was really an aberration," DeSantis said at a news conference where he signed the bill into law. "No individual or no company in Florida is treated this way."
d. While the financial impact on the company and the state is uncertain, the change could alter how Disney operates its sprawling Central Florida empire and sour the close relationship it has enjoyed with the state for more than 50 years.
My Positions and Why
A. While corporations have the right to say and do many things politically, if they want to, I personally do not like to see this. A corporation is there, primarily, to make money for its shareholders. Why is there a need to get entangled in a very controversial topic like this? It is different if there is an issue that has a direct impact on their industry. Yes, then you lobby to have your voice heard. But that is when it is a policy that directly impacts the business itself. This issue does not fall into that bucket (you would have to really stretch to say it does, and if you do that, then it would be easy to do that for ANY topic).
B. It is hard to see why a corp would turn into a political activist, since there are usually going to be multiple sides to that, and you risk alienating some significant portion of your employees and your customers, which is exactly what happened in this case. Many hot-button topics like this have almost equal supporters on each side. So a company jumping out and taking a position on something like this is not going to make half the employees happy. And will also alienate half the potential customers of your business, in this case a family-oriented theme park.
C. In my view, the issue of how FL schools will be run, and what the curriculum will be, and what is an age-appropriate time to discuss LGBT issues, is an issue to be discussed and decided by the citizens and school-related agencies in FL. And the laws are passed by the duly elected representatives in the FL house and senate (who represent the people). And polling suggests the people support the bill. Why does Disney need to jump in, as a corporation, and try to tell FL what to do? Yes, they have employees there, but many (half?) of them support the new law. That puts these employees in a difficult position where they know their employer is fighting against their interests, but it makes it appear that “all of Disney” is fighting against the bill. Why does Disney need to meddle in FL business? I know they have a business there, but that doesn’t morally give them the right to try to bully the state of FL to do what it wants. Legally, yes, they can say whatever. But that doesn’t mean that other entities won’t push back. This includes the citizens of FL and their elected representatives (including the governor), who represent the people of FL, not the corporation of Disney. In fact, isn’t it more the left who accuses the right of “being in bed with corporations?” If DeSantis bends to Disney demands then he is being influenced by a corporation is he not?
D. I don’t like governments wielding abusive power against individuals. We have seen too much of this in the past, at both the state and federal levels. And we should be careful how we regulate and interact with businesses too. Of course we do regulate them all the time. In this case though, it is a very specific corporation that is getting the wrath, which is even worse. However, Disney initiated the fight, one that was not necessary, and attempted to usurp the power from the elected reps by pressuring the governor, which is morally suspect as well. Disney is a “big boy,” and if they are going to come out throwing punches at another big boy (DeSantis), you can bet he will fight back. Just like Disney has the legal right to say what it wants, and use its money to lobby for what it wants, DeSantis has rights too. Yes, he has to stay legal. Removing a “privilege” from Disney is not illegal. In fact, you could ask legitimate questions as to why they have that special deal in the first place. However, this discussion is not about that. But I will admit that it does look like retaliation for Disney meddling in FL affairs. It is unfortunate, but not unexpected. There is a culture war going on, and every state is fighting that war in its own way. And really, these wars, and where things end up, should play out in the state legislatures. I don’t think we want to see corporations picking sides and jumping in with their money and influence. Disney should butt-out and worry about its sagging stock price (down 37% in 6 months).
E. The bill itself, to me, is a no-brainer. Parents should indeed have some rights as it pertains to how their child is educated and what materials are used and at what age. But this discussion is not centered on that. The only thread is just that DeSantis feels the bill is worth fighting for, because of its importance, and therefore is grabbing at things he can do to ward off the power of Disney to keep it from derailing something good for the people of his state. Does that mean that the end justifies the means? Well, he cannot do anything illegal to Disney. And policies should be applied evenly across business in the same industry. Taking their ”special” status away does not violate either of those things. From DeSantis’s view, he might ask “how do you expect me to fight back?” “What can I do against a giant company like Disney?” “How can I push back against them trying to impose their will on my state?” And while he may not have wanted to punch back like that, maybe he felt in was the only thing he had. Afterall, we are in a Culture WAR, and there will likely be distasteful things that must be done to avoid losing. You don’t want to lose all your integrity in the war, but if the other side doesn’t care about integrity and you do, you may find yourself losing all the battles. Sometimes you do what needs to be done. I bet the Ukrainians would have a thing or two to say about that.
F. Hypocrisy/consistency check: Would I feel the same way if the sides were reversed? A Dem Gov retaliating against a right-leaning company? Yes, I would. Thanks for asking! I am a big believer in state’s rights, and a believer that the state legislature should arbitrate the state’s issues. I am a fan of corporations too. I just don’t believe they need to meddle in state politics unless it is something directing impacting the business itself.
Opposing Viewpoints
A. I recognize that there are legitimate, sincere, understandable opposing viewpoints to mine. But I do not believe these invalidate my personal position in any way. Reasonable people can disagree on this topic and I am happy with hearing those viewpoints.
B. I feel fairly solid in my position but am open to other thoughts and ideas that could either make me feel stronger about my position, cause me to rethink how strongly I feel about my position, or even push me to a more neutral stance on this. And I am open to even change my position given enough evidence and persuasive arguments to the contrary. Of course that is what being an intellectual is all about. But don’t mistake that to mean I have not thought hard about it (as evidenced by everything I have written).
C. It is okay to agree to disagree on this. Two intelligent people, with different world views, may certainly come to different conclusions on this topic. I am completely okay with that. Hopefully we can at least agree on the facts. And then hopefully we can try to understand the different interpretations of the issue that each person may have. And then try to understand how each person’s world view plays into their position on this topic. And finally, it is always great to find common ground – if possible (not mandatory but nice). And of course, being respectful of other people’s opinions is key. You don’t have to agree, but there is no need to attack someone for their beliefs, just as you would not want to be attacked for your beliefs. To think you already know everything is the antithesis of being an intellectual. Similarly, if you can’t imagine why anybody thinks differently than you, then you also have very little creative space in your brain. So be an intellectual, and be imaginative!
Sources
1 https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/desantis-vs-disney-qa/
3. https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=76545
4. https://www.orangeobserver.com/article/florida-house-bill-1557-what-it-says-and-what-it-doesnt
6. https://excellenceinpolling.com/poll/2022-florida-education-poll/
My Rebuttal, #2
Let’s look at this section by section.
The key phrase in all of your response is: " Me: Yes, it was retaliation, but I am saying that I think it was justified. " You've admitted nothing.
Me: So I write an extensive answer to your original question, complete with sources and rationale for why I have the position I took, and then respond to every point you brought up, and you focus on one line? That doesn’t show that you have even read what I have written. And you have answered *none* of the questions I asked you along the way. There is nothing for me to “admit.” I am not on trial, and I have said nothing wrong. I have explained in great detail why I feel the way I do, which is the whole point of exchanging ideas with someone who thinks different than you. Just like I am learning from you in terms of how you form your position and what is important to you, your job here is to listen to what I am saying and try to understand the thought process I have. That is the whole point.
Are you saying retaliation can never be justified? So you never punch back? If someone attacks you? Your character? Your family? Your way of life? 9/11? Come on. So the question is when is it justified, not if.
What you are saying is that all you hatred toward democrats is valid, but when a republican does the exact thing, it is "justified".
Me: Here you are going off the deep end again. I have no “hatred” for anyone, nor have I expressed that in this discussion. In fact, quite the opposite. And I have no problem with your position on this matter. My interpretation is that you are big on first amendment rights (as I am too), but also you support the right of a corporation to use its money/influence to try to change a state law. I certainly agree with their right to say what they want, and I have written in great detail why I think that is morally a bad idea in this case. And it is legal, at least to some extent, for them to work to overturn a law. Again, I think that is a bad idea, and I have explained why. You are conflating things here, as this is not really a republican/democrat thing, it is more of a philosophical/ideological thing. Not sure what reverse situation would be exactly applicable here.
Your side says 'Hillary should be in jail for having her own email server, but it is political retaliation when the DOJ gets a warrant to enter Mara Largo' to retrieve documents that belong to the government. In this case it is not justified? Does "justified" only apply when your side does something bad? Or is the "justification" argument a way to dodge the bitter truth?
Me: You veered off the path big time here. Please stick to the topic. That is a totally different discussion, and quite frankly it shows the hypocrisy of the left-leaning FBI more than anything else, so not something, in my opinion, that helps make your argument here. In fact, in this discussion, I actually went into a “hypocrisy check” just to check myself, and I think I passed it based on what I said above. The question is still open if your position passes that test, since you did not even bother to respond to the question I posed to you (on how you would feel if the “sides” were reversed).
Disappointed.
Me: So that is an attempt to “shame” me for thinking differently, I suppose. You should only be disappointed if I am not able to explain my thinking. But I did that. In quite a bit of detail. So that leaves me disappointed that you are not able to accept that someone thinks differently from you. I absolutely accept, and respect, your beliefs and values. I want to understand the “why” of your position, find common ground if possible, and then, perhaps, give you one or two points to think about. I know better than to think I will change your mind – but that is not the goal here.
How bizarre it would be if every one of us thought the same. We each have our own world view, upbringing, education, and experiences that shape how we see the world. And no two of those paths are the same. The way we defeat the nasty divide that we have in this country is to recognize that diversity of thought is one of our strengths, not weaknesses. And the ability to respect each other’s beliefs is critical to a courteous and successful discussion of the issues we are facing as a country.
I should add, thank you for taking the time to respond.
Me: There is a flash of something positive! Hooray!
Also, I should add that I am grateful you took the time to respond so thoroughly. It was a good answer in spite of the one-sided flaws. I do the same thing. You did out a lot in there that justifies your view on this specific question. But it does limit your honest and intellectual response when the dems do things you don't like. When I use those same arguments I hope you will acknowledge the hypocrisy.
Me: You started out well, but then flagged a bit. “One-sided flaws.” Can you give me detail on where those flaws are? What was “one-sided” about my reasoning? I told you very clearly that I would believe the same if it was a company trying to overturn a law in a “blue” state. I can’t be any more universal than that, can I? I am giving you a non-partisan position, which is the best any of us can do. So – without resorting to topics that are not part of this discussion – can you show me where I am being hypocritical? And again, I am waiting for your response to my hypothetical, reverse situation, so you can do your own hypocrisy check (this should apply to you as well, correct?). That is a really healthy exercise.
I also asked a few other questions along the way here, for which I would love to get your response.
Hey, let’s refocus our efforts to learn from “the other side” here, versus attack with accusations, shaming, etc. Learning leads to understanding, and that leads to common ground. This country needs that more than ever right now.
Thanks!
Peace
Blue Response/Rebuttal #2
The key phrase in all of your response is: " Me: Yes, it was retaliation, but I am saying that I think it was justified. " You've admitted nothing. ----- What you are saying is that all you hatred toward democrats is valid, but when a republican does the exact thing, it is "justified". Your side says 'Hillary should be in jail for having her own email server, but it is political retaliation when the DOJ gets a warrant to enter Mara Largo' to retrieve documents that belong to the government. In this case it is not justified? Does "justified" only apply when your side does something bad? Or is the "justification" argument a way to dodge the bitter truth? Disappointed.
I should add, thank you for taking the time to respond.
Also, I should add that I am grateful you took the time to respond so thoroughly. It was a good answer in spite of the one-sided flaws. I do the same thing. You did out a lot in there that justifies your view on this specific question. But it does limit your honest and intellectual response when the dems do things you don't like. When I use those same arguments I hope you will acknowledge the hypocrisy.
My Response to Blue Position:
Me: First of all, thank you for sharing these thoughts. I will respond inline, section by section.
I like how you laid out the sources. I don't agree with all of the wording. We can agree to disagree of the few things that I find a bit slanted toward your view. I give you credit for not going off the deep end. My comments below are not to say that you are wrong, but to express how my views differ from what you state as your position. In most cases it's a wash. We agree on a lot of it, even though I'm adding my own twist to what you say.
Me: This is a decent start. Admitting that it is okay to have a different viewpoint. Excellent.
I can say, however, that I find some things you say a bit combative. See below. Source 1, bullet C: Disney said: "Our goal as a company is for this law to be repealed..." Source 1, bullet D: DeSantis replies: "We view that as a provocation...". Source 1, bulled F: The next day DeSantis called a special session (expensive to the state) to discuss dissolving the special districts. That is plain and simple retaliation against a "provocateur" that didn't exist.
Me: Not sure how those are “combative.” At least from me. That is just source material. Maybe you mean DeSantis was combative?
I'm getting ahead of myself when I say 1) I never told you (I don't think) whether or not I agree or disagree with the bill DeSantis signed. 2) I completely agree that having special laws targeted toward a particular corporation is bad. 3) the two are unrelated. I have no objection to Florida removing the special status Disney had. But it should not have happened as retaliation (and DeSantis essentially admitted it was). Indeed he called a special session to make it happen immediately. Retaliation, pure and simple.
Me: I think I have already agreed it appears to be a retaliatory move (section D of my answer). Keep in mind that, retaliation means, by definition, that somebody did something first, and you are responding to it. We have no disagreement here. The question is whether or not it was warranted/ethical (“did he abuse his power?”)
My views on the bill (yours either) are irrelevant to this discussion. About 1/2 of the people agree with the bill, and about 1/2 do not. It's irrelevant which side you are on and which side I am on. But those that oppose it are (a) allowed to say so and (b) work to have it repealed.
Me: You mention “people” here, and I think that is significant. This bill is the business of the “people” of Florida. And yes, they have the right to say what they want about it. They also elected representatives to the FL state legislature to represent them and to vote on bills like this one. Disney is NOT a person, and not a citizen of FL. It is a corporation. As such, it does not vote, and does not get a seat at the table for determining whether bills pass. The votes in the state house indicate support is not 50-50, as you state, but much more tilted towards supporting the bill. Mr Bob Chapek, CEO of Disney, is a person. But not even sure he lives in FL. And he was not speaking for himself, he was speaking for all of Disney. Because our positions on the bill are irrelevant, I will jump to your positions. A. "While corporations have the right"... I'm not sure how this applies. You didn't say anything wrong (i.e. corporations should pay attention to their bottom line) but it is not relevant to our discussion.
Me: It is actually quite relevant. This is all a moral argument, is it not? Nobody has done anything illegal, so therefore we are debating the moral merits of what happened. So thus I am saying, while they have the right to speak their mind, others have the right to push back against them. Since this is a moral/ethical argument, context matters.
B. "It is hard to see why a corp would turn into a political activist,"... Again, irrelevant. I will point out, however, that corporations express their views all the time. It is the prerogative to do so. And if they do it is not a provocation.
Me: It absolutely can be a provocation, as it was in this case. From this source: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/28/business/disney-florida-lgbtq-law.html
We have the following:
“In its statement on Monday, Disney added that it was committed to the national and state organizations working to overturn the law.”
So that is a corporation committed to overturning the law, which represents the will of the people of FL. Which is basically an effort to exert outside power to usurp the legal legislative process in a state.
I would definitely consider that a provocation, from a corporation that is not even headquartered in FL (HQ is Burbank, CA).
So you may be okay with one of the largest, richest corporations in the world ($67B in revenue)rolling into your state and trying to dictate which laws are allowed, but I would argue that most people would not like this in their state. The people don’t elect the corporation, they elect their legislators, and so by extension, they want those folks to make the laws they live under. That is how representative democracy works. So most folks would view what Disney did as meddling in the state’s affairs.
C. "In my view..." I agree that Florida legislators can make any laws they want to make. Again, it's kinda of irrelevant to our discussion. You say that Floridians should be allowed to make their own laws. Then you say that just because Disney has a presence in Florida, it "doesn't morally give them the right to try to bully the state of FL". They expressed their view. This isn't a morality question. And why are you using the word "bully"? Since when is expressing your views an act of "bullying"? Are you guys making this a fight. People and corporations are allowed to lobby to fix any laws they disagree with. That's not "bullying".
Me: See above. It is bullying when you directly say you are going to work to overturn a law that the state created, and you are a $67B company. Disney has vast resources at its disposal.
“In its statement on Monday, Disney added that it was committed to the national and state organizations working to overturn the law.”
That is absolutely a threat, not just a “position.” I think it is naïve to think otherwise (no offense).
Let’s say a corporation, someone big like IBM, went into your state and worked aggressively, using all the money and power at its disposal, to outlaw abortion. And work to overturn a law that allowed abortion. So you would be fine with that? You are fine with corporate power overturning the will of the people in any given state? Even when the law has *nothing* to do with their business itself?
D. "I don't like governments..." You say Disney initiated the fight. What fight? Why is this a fight? Disney expressed it's views, and DeSantis made it a fight ("it's a provocation") That is wrong. I cannot understand how when Disney expressed their views, they "attempted to usurp the power by elected reps" They spoke their mind. Period. They didn't initiate a fight. And they didn't usurp anybody's power. Disney cannot make laws. Also they didn't "throw punches" they simply made a statement - their 1st amendment right.
Me: See above. Maybe you are just not clear in what they said they were going to do. So this gives you a chance to reverse your thoughts on this, perhaps. This has nothing to do with the 1st amendment.
You also say: "But I will admit that it does look like retaliation for Disney meddling in FL affairs" I give you credit for that. Disney's stock price is irrelevant and doesn't support or refute your point of view. You are implying a correlation between their comments and their stock price. You don't have any data to make that claim. Would you ridicule the left media if it said the reason the stock price was down was because they not have to pay Florida a large percentage of their profits? We don't know why their stock price is down and it really doesn't matter. Nor does it support your point of view. Pure noise.
Me: OK, fair point. What I was trying to get across, was that this fight in FL has nothing to do with them as a business. And that perhaps, as a business, they should focus on what they do…as a business (instead of jumping into a huge political fight, which is bad business). That said, and while irrelevant, their stock did take a beating that correlated to them picking this fight. Can I prove it? Of course not – not sure how I would even do that. But the timing matches pretty well.
E. "The bill itself, to me..." In some ways it is irrelevant if you believe the bill itself is a no-brainer. As you state that isn't the point. They passed a bill and DeSantis sighed it. It is the law. About 1/2 of the people like it, and about 1/2 of the people don't. We must allow the 1/2 that don't have a voice. DeSantis should not be "fighting back" at anyone who expresses their 1st amendment rights against the bill. It's not fight unless you make it one. Instead protesting a law you disagree with is just the standard American way to change our laws. "how do you expect me to fight back...against a company that wants to impose their will on his state. Wow! Just WOW! First, the easy one. It isn't just his state. The other half of the people have opinions too. It is just as much their state as it is his. 2nd, Disney is not in a position to impose anything on the state. Where did that come from. Who is provoking the fight here? You say we are in a culture WAR. Why do republicans want to start a war. It isn't a war unless we make it one. When Americans have differing opinions, it don't have to lead to war. Our history is full of people accepting that others may have a different opinions. You say the other side doesn't have integrity, so it's OK to fight back without integrity. Again Wow. No data, no evidence, just calling the other side evil to justify your nastiness.
Me: Woah, slow down, I think you clearly misunderstood. First, based on the elected representatives and their votes, it is not something split half and half, at least from a legislative standpoint. Far more reps were for the bill (in fact, for both bills).And yes, all the PEOPLE of FL do get a voice. It is called elections. Disney is not a FL citizen nor an elected rep.
As a side note, when polling has been done that accurately describes the bill, most people, including a majority of dems, support the bill. https://spectatorworld.com/topic/poll-americans-support-text-dont-say-gay-bill-parental-rights/ But hey, you can disregard so I won’t be “orthogonal”, just pointing out that it really isn’t a half/half thing like you keep saying. Turns out most people are good with the bill.
DeSantis is “sticking up for his state” in terms of many of the public statements made, but it is the whole legislature that is responsible for passing both bills. And that represents the will of the people. So you might as well attack the people of FL for those bills.
As I have shown you, with sources, Disney is doing MUCH more than just “giving an opinion.” They stated, very clearly, that they were going to work to overturn the law. So if you are going to escalate the fight, which is what Disney did, then you should expect escalation from the other side.
I think you misunderstand the term “culture war.” This is not a hot war (violence), this is the war of words, laws, and changes to cultural norms. It is fought every day in the news, in politician statements, articles, opinion pieces, comments on news stories. And yes, posts like this on blog forums. It has been going on in the US for many years, perhaps decades, or maybe since the country was formed. But it has increased in intensity the last 10 years or so.
You won’t find someone more tolerant than I am about other viewpoints. They are part of what makes this country great. And every citizen of every state gets to have their viewpoint heard, and indeed represented in their state house, per the laws of that state regarding the elections of representatives. That is how the system works. And by extension, everyone in the country can certainly express their opinion…on anything. But that is not the same thing as a corporation exerting its power trying to overturn the will of the people. Sorry, I am not a fan of that. Is it legal? Yes, at least in most cases. But so is punching back to try to limit that kind of influence. And what the Fl legislature did was completely legal. My point about ethics/integrity, is that due to Disney’s lack of ethics, the state of FL had to get down in the dirt/mud too. And I was making the point that sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
---------- So, I'm not sure how satisfied I am with your answer. You say you'd be offended if a Dem governor did the same thing to a right-leaning corporation. If you had ended it there, I'd probably accept that you agree that DeSantis abused his power. But you gave him an out by saying corporations should stay out of it. Indeed a lot of your argument is an attempt to justify why the retaliation is acceptable. It never is.
Me: “It never is.” Somehow I find it hard to believe you would accept it if things were the other way around, like the hypothetical I gave above.
----------- Bottom line. A lot of what you said is orthogonal to the question. It seems like a way to justify the retaliation. But in the end you said that you admit "it does look like retaliation". So I'll accept that. Thank you.
Me: Yes, it was retaliation, but I am saying that I think it was justified. If someone walked up and punched you in the face, you could walk away, but you would also be justified in punching them back. I am sorry if that doesn’t sit well with you, but I hope you can at least understand why I have that position, based on everything I have laid out here and all the stated sources. And I can honestly say that I would have the same position if the roles were reversed. I will always be for the “will of the people” and in general, for “states rights.” Especially over the power of corporations. While I like to think we could both agree on that (wasn’t there a time when the left was very much against the influence of corporations in politics?), I can accept your position as long as you stay consistent on it (corporations are allowed to peddle their influence with impunity, I suppose). If a scenario comes up where the “sides” are reversed, you can bet I will bring it up and I hope, for your integrity, you stay consistent on your position.
Peace!
Sir Truth
Blue Response
OK, so here is the opposing viewpoint: (full text in its entirety first and then my responses in a separate entry)
I like how you laid out the sources. I don't agree with all of the wording. We can agree to disagree of
the few things that I find a bit slanted toward your view. I give you credit for not going off the deep
end. My comments below are not to say that you are wrong, but to express how my views differ from what
you state as your position. In most cases it's a wash. We agree on a lot of it, even though I'm adding
my own twist to what you say.
I can say, however, that I find some things you say a bit combative. See below.
Source 1, bullet C: Disney said: "Our goal as a company is for this law to be repealed..."
Source 1, bullet D: DeSantis replies: "We view that as a provocation...".
Source 1, bulled F: The next day DeSantis called a special session (expensive to the state) to discuss
dissolving the special districts. That is plain and simple retaliation against a "provocateur" that didn't
exist.
I'm getting ahead of myself when I say
1) I never told you (I don't think) whether or not I agree or disagree with the bill DeSantis signed.
2) I completely agree that having special laws targeted toward a particular corporation is bad.
3) the two are unrelated. I have no objection to Florida removing the special status Disney had. But it
should not have happened as retaliation (and DeSantis essentially admitted it was). Indeed he called a
special session to make it happen immediately.
Retaliation, pure and simple.
My views on the bill (yours either) are irrelevant to this discussion. About 1/2 of the people agree with
the bill, and about 1/2 do not. It's irrelevant which side you are on and which side I am on. But those
that oppose it are (a) allowed to say so and (b) work to have it repealed.
Because our positions on the bill are irrelevant, I will jump to your positions.
A. "While corporations have the right"...
I'm not sure how this applies. You didn't say anything wrong (i.e. corporations should pay attention
to their bottom line) but it is not relevant to our discussion.
B. "It is hard to see why a corp would turn into a political activist,"...
Again, irrelevant. I will point out, however, that corporations express their views all the time. It
is the prerogative to do so. And if they do it is not a provocation.
C. "In my view..."
I agree that Florida legislators can make any laws they want to make. Again, it's kinda of irrelevant
to our discussion. You say that Floridians should be allowed to make their own laws. Then you say
that just because Disney has a presence in Florida, it "doesn't morally give them the right to try to
bully the state of FL". They expressed their view. This isn't a morality question. And why are you
using the word "bully"? Since when is expressing your views an act of "bullying"? Are you guys making
this a fight. People and corporations are allowed to lobby to fix any laws they disagree with. That's
not "bullying".
D. "I don't like governments..."
You say Disney initiated the fight. What fight? Why is this a fight? Disney expressed it's views,
and DeSantis made it a fight ("it's a provocation") That is wrong. I cannot understand how when
Disney expressed their views, they "attempted to usurp the power by elected reps" They spoke their
mind. Period. They didn't initiate a fight. And they didn't usurp anybody's power. Disney cannot
make laws. Also they didn't "throw punches" they simply made a statement - their 1st amendment
right.
You also say: "But I will admit that it does look like retaliation for Disney meddling in FL affairs"
I give you credit for that.
Disney's stock price is irrelevant and doesn't support or refute your point of view. You are implying
a correlation between their comments and their stock price. You don't have any data to make that
claim. Would you ridicule the left media if it said the reason the stock price was down was because
they not have to pay Florida a large percentage of their profits? We don't know why their stock price
is down and it really doesn't matter. Nor does it support your point of view. Pure noise.
E. "The bill itself, to me..."
In some ways it is irrelevant if you believe the bill itself is a no-brainer. As you state that isn't
the point. They passed a bill and DeSantis sighed it. It is the law. About 1/2 of the people like
it, and about 1/2 of the people don't. We must allow the 1/2 that don't have a voice. DeSantis
should not be "fighting back" at anyone who expresses their 1st amendment rights against the bill.
It's not fight unless you make it one. Instead protesting a law you disagree with is just the
standard American way to change our laws.
"how do you expect me to fight back...against a company that wants to impose their will on his state.
Wow! Just WOW! First, the easy one. It isn't just his state. The other half of the people have
opinions too. It is just as much their state as it is his. 2nd, Disney is not in a position to
impose anything on the state. Where did that come from. Who is provoking the fight here?
You say we are in a culture WAR. Why do republicans want to start a war. It isn't a war unless we
make it one. When Americans have differing opinions, it don't have to lead to war. Our history is
full of people accepting that others may have a different opinions. You say the other side doesn't
have integrity, so it's OK to fight back without integrity. Again Wow. No data, no evidence, just
calling the other side evil to justify your nastiness.
----------
So, I'm not sure how satisfied I am with your answer. You say you'd be offended if a Dem governor did the
same thing to a right-leaning corporation. If you had ended it there, I'd probably accept that you agree
that DeSantis abused his power. But you gave him an out by saying corporations should stay out of it. Indeed
a lot of your argument is an attempt to justify why the retaliation is acceptable. It never is.
-----------
Bottom line. A lot of what you said is orthogonal to the question. It seems like a way to justify the
retaliation. But in the end you said that you admit "it does look like retaliation". So I'll accept that.
Thank you.