DeSantis vs. Disney

People are flocking here for the "gulags"!

 

People are clearly moving to Florida because Freedom is not available.

LOL!

Some of you are so miserable. Covid has really messed a bunch of people up.

 

So most of you are okay fining a baker or photography business out of existence or forcing them to renounce their faith for being Christian (wrong thoughts) but taking away special privileges from a MNC with a larger GDP that most countries is beyond the pale.

Fascinating

 

The irony...

I am sitting back enjoying Life and Freedom.

Yet a bunch on here think that Disney is being sent to the "gulags" because they want to push an agenda with their free speech and now might lose some special privileges in the process. All while they have no concern for any human rights.

 

Propaganda is an amazing tool!

It truly is fascinating how scared these people are acting over this. No constitutional issues on either side. Yet the corporation who has no concern for human rights is being sent to the "Soviet Gulags" by having special privileges removed because they pushed a false narrative.

You can't make this stuff up.

 

Actually, I do understand. It is you who can not grasp that government cannot punish speech by denying benefits. Bye: Disney was not punished for doing business in China. Lots of US companies do. You want to shut down the economy? Let states punish companies doing business in China. And, you may be shocked to learn that the state id Florida cannot constitutionally punish companies for doing business in China. So, let’s disabuse that idea now and stick to why DeSantis did this. And, no, I will not spare you the analogy to incarceration for speech in prisons or gulags. Because once you set up a “political consequences” test to permit punishment for speech, imprisonment it only a greater degree of punishment. That is exactly what Stalin did. He imposed political consequences on dissent. That is what is happening To Navalny now.

 

All you ever do is repeat your mantras and never address the substance of what anyone says. You are right about one thing: propaganda is a strong tool. Exhibit A.

 

One really has nothing to do with the other.

The reason “liberals” may lean towards fining the bakery, is that the baker is in violation of public accommodation laws. They are violating the civil rights of the gay couple. Certainly if it were a black or mixed race couple, and a baker declined to serve them “because they don’t believe in mixing races” it would be clear cut discrimination. The only reason there is any vagueness is that the civil rights laws do not explicitly protect sexual orientation as a protected class (although I think a compelling argument can be made that it is already covered on the basis of sex… that civil rights protections based on religion, race, sex already protects sexual orientation and transgenders). Basically it’s not just a free speech issue as they are not solely being punished for their speech. As the operators of a business, there are other laws at play as well for this bakery… public accommodation laws and civil rights.

This Disney issue is totally different, as they are being arbitrarily punished by the state for their speech on an unrelated matter. It’s a much more clear cut free speech violation. Secondarily, it also seems ill conceived as the “punishment” is likely to be a net-negative to the counties and the state. It’s not just slapping a fine on them, it’s an issue that potentially hits hundreds of thousands of residents in the pocketbook when they have to pick up the tab for those services. So in addition to it likely being an unconstitutional attack on free speech, the “punishment” could be ill conceived from a fiscal perspective.

 

I’ve already given my best arguments on this thread, but I really feel like your level of condescension is ill-suited here, as this is nearly the most black and white example of inappropriate use of government action against private speech that I can recall. It seems to me there is some confusion over two separate aspects of this case:

1. how egregious is the government action?
2. how clear it is that the government action is inappropriate?

I can agree with you on aspect #1 that taking away a special district from an amoral mega-corporation isn’t the most heart wrenching tale and that these references to gulags are not helping anything. However, I also think this point is entirely irrelevant. The rule of law is explicitly designed to limit the power of individuals to make judgement calls regarding when to enforce rules.

It’s point #2 where the entire argument lies. Is government retribution for private speech inappropriate, yes or no? It doesn’t matter how wrong or if it is as wrong as something Obama did 10 years ago. Is this a proper use of government? Full stop. It seems very clearly improper. Full stop.

 

Beat me to it. It was also the case that Right Wing groups were more numerous and more disdainful of the need to even pretend there was a line between political activity and tax exempt organizations. There should be, and that and the gutting of the IRS to promote tax evasion is the real scandal

The Debunked IRS Targeting Scandal Shows There Is No Sane Wing of the GOP

 

My goodness, your butt is puckered so tight this morning that you couldn’t pull a needle out of it with a tractor.

 

Don’t use Jesus to justify bigotry.

 

The only difference is one appeals to your bias one doesn't.

 

Life is Tough!

 

One day you will understand and see it…

 

Last night, I listened to the oral arguments in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. The case involves a football coach who would pray at midfield after games. The facts get a little more involved, and I didn't read the briefs, but it seems to me from the oral arguments that at least one issue is about whether the Establishment Clause prohibits endorsement of religion as well as coercion. The coach is also asserting a Free Speech argument. Interestingly, the school district is arguing about the rights of the kids and their parents to not feel pressure to join in the prayer while the coach is saying it's his personal right and no one is forced to participate. I couldn't help think about how similar arguments may play out if the coach went to midfield with a gay pride flag or message, or if a teacher were reading Christopher Hitchens or the Church of Satan materials before or after the bell rang. I don't know the case law, but the parties were also arguing about whether and to what extent school employees' speech/actions should be treated differently if they are religious versus political.

 

My bias is towards freedom and equality, and against those who would undermine the full civil rights of minority groups. This includes the ability of any them to walk into any business or office in America without fear of discrimination on any of those basis.

I’m truly sorry if you don’t share my “bias”, and would prefer to be able to slap a “no colored”, “no Jews”, or “no gays” sign on your store front… because speech and “freedom” or some such.

 

There are consequences for speech every single day. As long as no one’s rights are violated then there is no issue.

Disneys rights have not been violated. You may not like the consequences or the decisions made in regards to their speech.

I assume you teach your kids to be careful about what they say because their can be consequences. That would be sound advice. They have every right to not listen. And they may end up dealing with consequences for what they say. There rights were not violated because they were told to not say things that might be viewed poorly. Shoot you may even “punish” your kids for what they say because it bothered you but it may not have bothered someone else.

Disney played politics. They have every right to do that. Just like Florida has every right to determine who is afforded special privileges.

 

A lot of you did very poorly on the analogy section of the SATs.