Disney scraps plans for new Florida campus, mass employee relocation amid DeSantis feud

Oy vey.

 

The party has the same values as it did 15 years ago (probably more liberal values). It just grew a backbone and that terrifies you.

Also, yeah... tell yourself that outlawing the killing of an unborn baby is fascism.

 

Again, false equivalencies.

"revocation of a special tax district" as a punishment for free speech is different than requiring gender diversity of the boards of public companies. So tiresome.

 

I wouldn't call "forced diversity" a First Amendment violation, but I would call it anti-business policy and prejudicial policy towards "non-marginalized" groups. It violates THEIR rights through big government, and is anti-business policy, which is the point I was addressing when I brought up that policy to duchen.

Walgreens and Chick-Fil-A were blatant retaliation for company policy and viewpoint that the government didn't like.

And here you are predictably running cover for all of it.

 

If the Democratic norm these days was one of classical liberalism, your "I may hate what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it," with some semblance of respect for federalism and libertarianism when it's not politically convenient for them... when it benefits people they disagree with and businesses they may not like... then I would be here telling DeSantis to knock it off.

But as this thread shows, it's about politics, not principles. It's always about politics, not principles.

 

Speaking of getting more stupid by the day…

This CA requirement you cite is a business regulation that applies to *ALL* publicly traded corporations. It applied to all without prejudice against any one corporation. All such corporations must have 1 “underrepresented” member on their board. This is not targeting any one company. It’s a standard of compliance, like remitting sales tax receipts by the end of the month or adding a wheelchair ramp to meet ADA requirements. It may or may not be great policy to force diversity onto 100% of boards, but it applies equally for all public companies.

How can this be compared to the handling of Disney? As their retaliation (nice attempt at spin calling it “policy”) impacts exactly ONE company, just one special district out of thousands in the state? And the reason this lone Disney special district is being targeted is not actually because of anything Disney did in violation of any law, but because of a position their former CEO dared to take publicly. That’s it. That was the crime at the root of all this. Disney’s CEO dared “disagree” with dear leader and his fundamentalist attack against civil rights.

There is no basis at all to compare.

At least with respect to Newsome and Walgreens you have the similarity of a governor “going after” a company. We can at least entertain that as a discussion. But in that case, it was actually because Walgreens was failing to deliver services to constituents, it wasn’t purely a speech issue. Disney is 100% retaliation based on speech and there is no way to dance around that fact, try as you might.

 

Once again and for umpteenth time noting that by your definition a zygote the size of the head of a pin or a fetus/embryo the size of a kidney bean and biologically incapable of life outside of the womb is a "baby". The vast majority of Americans would not consider either a "baby". I'm so old that I remember a time when Republicans were actually concerned about the state inserting itself into personal medical decisions. I even recall that they used a slogan (paraphrasing) that politicians should not be inserting themselves into medical decisions that should be left to the doctor and the patient.

 

What kind of mental gymnastics is this? You are just pulling crap out of your behind at this point. Multiple posters showed you how intertwined MFL and Desantis are and you post word salad. But they are only allies but this and go look at that. I am done shredding you. Now, your ego is in the way because you cannot bring yourself to admit that Desantis has gone full autocrat. You support it. You are at "war"...buwhahahahaha. You have a very hard fall in front of you. Very hard. Maybe some of those books will break your fall but I doubt it.

You are a poor poster and I thought you were intelligent. I was wrong. You still haven't answered several easy questions that I gave you but since you knew the answers would put you in a worse light. You CHOSE to ignore them.

This is all moot. Desantis won't be president. Ever. THANK YOU JESUS.

 

I'm still waiting for you to tell me why the DeSantis-Disney thing is the norm, but all of my examples of Democrats are "one-offs."

 

My goodness.

This was the post I was responding to.

I was addressing this notion that "big government" and "business friendly" are actually things that you guys care about when it blatantly isn't.

There are more differences between the board policy and the DeSantis-Disney feud than say the Walgreens and Chick-Fil-A issues, but it does provide evidence of one point: Democrats are willing to violate the rights of certain people through big government if they believe it is in the name of some greater good.

And that provides DeSantis with cover for what he's doing because it demonstrates that we're operating under circumstances where government is seizing institutional control by pressuring businesses through policy and/or policy threats. Democrats are doing that and they're happy to do that because they believe when they do it, their reasons justify the action.

I think the real issue that you have is that Democrats are just generally targeting businesses that don't do business the way they would like them to (conservative organizations) while DeSantis is targeting one.

 

"Agree to the values we’ve been preaching, or eat the consequences of your own."

Spoken like a true fascist. Thankfully we can educate ourselves away from this type of "mind"set.

 

So stupid. As an (somewhat stodgy) old white guy, why would I automatically think old white guys are bad?

I do think “good old boys” networks are bad. I don’t think requiring one minority per public board is a big deal. In fact, it’s almost impossible to imagine why any very large corporation or organization would not be able to comply or already go far beyond that level of diversity. Let’s say the typical board had 10-12 members. To end up with an all white male board, you’d almost have to go out of your way to do it. Like defacto descrimination. It’s crazy.

You don’t actually think as it stands corporate board seats go to the best and brightest, do you? Hunter Biden ring a bell? Most board seats are connections or name, essentially the board member is there “representing” the interests of someone else. Like a large institutional shareholder. Not to say they don’t take their responsibility seriously, but it’s definitely not a full time job and it’s not a job you demonstrate your skills for.

The worst outcome of CA’s law is that it creates an in-network of minorities that sit on boards, the proverbial “token black guy”. I don’t really think a corporate board seat is priority as far as where disadvantaged communities need opportunities, but it seems pretty comical to see it as an onerous requirement or some sort of societal disaster. Some of you just can’t help giving yourselves away…

 

When I say "agree to the values we've been preaching," I don't mean agree with me on policy.

I mean value classical liberalism, "I may hate what you have to say, but I'll fight like Hell for your right to say it." Value small-government and pro-business policy.

Don't just use these things as a sword or shield when the chickens come home to roost.

 

I already showed you it's not one minority.

You going to stop lying now?

I don't know, at this point maybe you are just a complete moron.

 

Yes, but the world is now ending because DeSantis is attempting to remove Disney's special tax district.

 

There are all-Black basketball teams. Is that "defacto discrimination?"

 

Did you really show this? Your quote:

“By December 31, 2021, Underrepresented Communities on Boards (AB 979) requires all publicly held domestic or foreign corporations whose principal executive offices are located in California to have at least one director from anunderrepresented community on their boards, either by filling an open seat or by adding a seat. By December 31, 2022, such publicly held corporations will be required to have minimum numbers of directors from underrepresented communities based on the total size of thecorporation's board of directors”

Because that makes it sound like the requirement was indeed a measly.. ONE. The 2nd deadline is more vague as to its requirement. So, a company of larger scale might need… two? Maybe a woman and a minority? No way!

 

Reading comprehension is your friend.

"By December 31, 2022, such publicly held corporations will be required to have minimum numbers of directors from underrepresented communities based on the total size of thecorporation's board of directors”

New California Law Requires Diversity on Corporate Boards of Directors.

"Similar to its 2018 predecessor (SB 826), which focused on increasing female representation on boards of directors, SB 979 requires each covered corporation to have at least one director from an underrepresented community on its board by the end of 2021. By the close of 2022, a covered corporation with between five and eight directors must have at least two directors from underrepresented communities, and a covered corporation with nine or more directors must have at least three directors from underrepresented communities. Under the new law, the California secretary of state may impose a $100,000 fine“[f]or failure to timely file board member information” for the first violation and $300,000 for each subsequent violation."

At least have the decency to admit you were lying or that you were wrong.

 

told you so. Ignore option works brilliantly. I freeze em for 90 days check back in for the lunacy and within a week put ‘em back on. They only get worse. The better part of the GOP is mentally iill, bitter old men or just vile people.

 

What is a man?