LOL... Anyone or any business who violates the trust of another should expect consequences. Disney has every right to be push a false narrative and misrepresent. Florida has every right to say we do not want to work with a company by providing them ongoing special privileges anymore if they are going to act in such a manner that breaks the trust of a good working relationship. This is on Disney. It is unfortunate that so many seem to not care that Disney pushed a false narrative and misrepresented what the State of Florida was doing with the Parental Rights Bill.
Well, I see that no one wanted to play my game. Could that be because this bill was gaslighting nonsense from the get go? No one is teaching your K-3 kids about sex, gay or otherwise. So, who is REALLY engaging in misrepresentation? Suckers
No. It is not hard to read the bill and know if one is misrepresenting the bill and pushing a false narrative. And if they are...then they are disrespecting whomever they are misrepresenting. Whether it be a government entity. A private entity. A Person. Etc..
Well now it appears DeSantis didn’t do his homework. It appears Reedy Creek can’t be dissolved until 2029. The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek
Interesting. I thought there might be something similar. Of course, they could lean on the bondholders. You like to think they couldn't, though the bondholders have too much power. I would never presume that anymore in this political environment
Aside from being a bill no one needed ( see Swampbabe post #1142) and a bill that was vaguely written, and a bill that will be likely thrown out, the government does not get to punitively retaliate if someone speaks out against it. Whether the criticism is warranted or not isn't pertinent. Our Constitution allows free speech. All other considerations, like special favors, tax breaks, deferred obligations, etc are not mentioned in the Constitution as a requirement to have or keep one's free speech.
Good read. Beyond the constitutional issues I was wondering how they would unwind the bonds as they are usually not assumable. Turns out they pay higher taxes than anybody around them to provide a level of service others are unwilling to tax themselves for. So much for all the noise about them not paying taxes
Disney has the absolute right to "play politics" by disagreeing with the governor without suffering punishment at the hands of the government. You basically are admitting the punishment element of the governmental actions, and that means that you are admitting its fascist nature. ANYTHING done by the government as punishment for an entity stating an opinion contrary to the governor's...taking away a previously granted privilege, raising taxes, rescinding a previously approved zoning....it doesn't matter what it is...if it's done as punishment for protected speech, it is an unconstitutional, fascist action. The constitution does NOT say words to the effect that "An entity can be punished for speech critical of the government, and the First Amendment is not in effect, if the punishment is the recission of a previously granted privilege". Just know that whether or not you like the following characterization, it is true that when you support this governmental punishment for Disney's protected speech, you are supporting fascism!
Well, one would think it is easy to see that you misrepresent a lot around here (for example, how many people have pointed out that vaccination slows the spread while you continue to stick to it not stopping the spread entirely as a response, without acknowledging that it slows the spread). One could certainly label that as misrepresentation. I would imagine that you would disagree. So maybe it isn't as easy as you think it is. You think that opinions differing is the same as misrepresentation. I'd posit that it isn't and that the bill forbids certain discussion, especially at relates to gender or sexual preference, making "Don't say gay" an apt short hand for its description, much as ACA never actually said the name Obama in it, but people called it Obamacare because it contained some (although not all) of his ideas, as a shorthand.
Keep it up. No one's constitutional rights have been violated. The only thing wrong are those who think it is okay to push a false narrative by misrepresenting the issue. Sadly it is being justified just because some did not like the legislation. But keep on supporting the side that says let's teach sex ed to K-3 and we will see who wins in the arena of ideas...
Keep on supporting the side that misrepresented and pushed a false narrative. DeSantis and the pubs will appreciate that...
The vaccines have not slowed the spread. The greatest spread has happened post vaccine. In fact...once omicron came. Prior infection lost a lot of effectiveness. Unfortunately Delta was already a thing by the time the vaccines were given EUA. And even more unfortunate...we continued to push a vaccine designed for the alpha variant instead of push that for high risk groups and keep healthy population control groups to try and be more agile in taking on future variants. If you want to have K-3rd graders talking gender and sex with their teachers...we will be as far apart as one could be on an issue. That is weird and creepy. That said. Fire away with that fight. You will help DeSantis and the pubs.
Poster has been requested to post sources, polls etc. but doesn't. Telling. Now claims one side wants to teach sex ed to K-3. I suppose making up stuff is just as good as verification to some. LOL
See what I mean? You claim it hasn't slowed the spread when every statistic comparing vaccinated populations and unvaccinated populations has shown slower spread in vaccinated populations than in unvaccinated populations. I'd label that misrepresentation. In fact, given the text of the bill, I'd argue that claiming it was only about teaching gender and sex to K-3rd is a misrepresentation, as the bill explicitly allowed for a pathway to get rid of instruction at older ages as well (the text includes a clause after the word "or" to do exactly that). So you just misrepresented the bill, right? You claimed something was misrepresentation for no reason other than you didn't like the framing, not because it was factually wrong. As such, you are advocating for utilizing the government to enforce your opinions by punishing those that hold different opinions. You have simply framed it in a way to excuse that behavior to yourself.
