Disney is Threatening to Cease Filming

[Tom P.]

Seriously? How are those two things even remotely comparable?

If Georgia's law is a violation of basic human rights, then so is Florida's. Disney says they won't do business in a state that so egregiously discriminates. So let's see them stand by that. But there's gonna be quite a few states they can no longer do business in.

 

[adam.adbe]

If Georgia's law is a violation of basic human rights, then so is Florida's. Disney says they won't do business in a state that so egregiously discriminates. So let's see them stand by that. But there's gonna be quite a few states they can no longer do business in.

Yeah sure, but you didn't answer my question: how is opting to film a movie in one state rather than another in any way equivalent to closing down the World's largest/busiest theme park, and relocating it en-masse elsewhere in the US?

 

[dlavender]

What is Florida's law?

ETA: And I'd really like to now if ministers are being forced to perform sacraments that defy their beliefs. I would think that I would have heard of this happening. Is there a law protecting Catholic priests from having to marry people without annulling their divorces?

 

[Tom P.]

Yeah sure, but you didn't answer my question: how is opting to film a movie in one state rather than another in any way equivalent to closing down the World's largest/busiest theme park, and relocating it en-masse elsewhere in the US?

So standing up for fundamental human rights is only important if the cost involved isn't too great? That's my point. Disney is taking a stand in Georgia. But they're not planning to pull out of every state that has similar laws. Worse yet, they're in the process of building a new park in a country that is consistently one of the worst abusers of human rights on the planet. It feels to me like Disney and its leadership doesn't really have a core set of principles guiding them as they claim. Rather, they see Georgia as a place where they can score some positive PR without it costing too much, and they're using it for that. That's my point.

 

[Magic Fanatic]

I guess I missed the part in our country where we can do and treat LGBT's as we wish with no consequences. It's my understanding that all people are treated the same under every law. Did this change recently?

And this has absolutely nothing to do with the proposed Georgia law.

 

[dlavender]

I've read through the proposed bill. I really don't understand the need for it, since I couldn't find one instance on a GA minister/priest/rabbi being forced to perform a sacrament that conflicts with their religious beliefs. Kind of a head scratcher....

Does GA normally pass legislation to protect rights that people already have? Is their next bill to allow people to purchase groceries, or apply for jobs that they feel like they want to apply for?

ETA: This is most likely why Disney is taking a stand against it. Why pass a bill that on its surface doesn't do anything? There has to be another motive. I have to side with Disney on this one.....

 

[hyerpraise]

dlavender, I guess US Congress has never passed any laws for laws that already existed. This is a proactive bill rather than a reactive bill. Who would have ever thought that a bakery in Washington State would have to pay an exorbitant fine and face shutting down their privately owned business for their rights to not serve a cake at a service they felt conflicted with their beliefs. They were not nasty about it or mean spirited but b/c they wouldn't make a cake they were force to pay a huge fine. So this law is to prevent this because if you do not think this scenario is going to happen where the LGBT is going to go to a beautiful ornate church and want a wedding and ask to use the building and the pastor/rabbi/priest knowing what their answer is going to be, then you have lived too long with your head in the ground and need to live a little. This would protect a mosque from a Christian coming in and forcing them to perform a Christian wedding ceremony. Or an Agnostic going to a Synagogue telling them they would have to perform what ever type of wedding ceremony they wanted. This protecting the religious freedoms of Georgians that know there is a time in the very near future where this is going to cross the line and a lawsuit is going to pop-up. People from all walks of life are just itching at the opportunity to be offended so they can find a lawyer and sue and the GA lawmakers see the near future of this happening and this law is preventing this scenario. At least 12-15 other states have similar legislation already on the books and FL is one of them so was stated previously, this is a PR stunt to show the world where Disney, or the brass in charge of Disney, stands.

 

[dlavender]

dlavender, I guess US Congress has never passed any laws for laws that already existed. This is a proactive bill rather than a reactive bill. Who would have ever thought that a bakery in Washington State would have to pay an exorbitant fine and face shutting down their privately owned business for their rights to not serve a cake at a service they felt conflicted with their beliefs. They were not nasty about it or mean spirited but b/c they wouldn't make a cake they were force to pay a huge fine. So this law is to prevent this because if you do not think this scenario is going to happen where the LGBT is going to go to a beautiful ornate church and want a wedding and ask to use the building and the pastor/rabbi/priest knowing what their answer is going to be, then you have lived too long with your head in the ground and need to live a little. This would protect a mosque from a Christian coming in and forcing them to perform a Christian wedding ceremony. Or an Agnostic going to a Synagogue telling them they would have to perform what ever type of wedding ceremony they wanted. This protecting the religious freedoms of Georgians that know there is a time in the very near future where this is going to cross the line and a lawsuit is going to pop-up. People from all walks of life are just itching at the opportunity to be offended so they can find a lawyer and sue and the GA lawmakers see the near future of this happening and this law is preventing this scenario. At least 12-15 other states have similar legislation already on the books and FL is one of them so was stated previously, this is a PR stunt to show the world where Disney, or the brass in charge of Disney, stands.

Interesting take. Proactive legislation.....Can't see any slope there....Given your first portion, this law has nothing to do with ministers being forced to do anything (because they aren't forced), but more to do with a businesses right to discriminate? Would this bill have helped that bakery? If not, why bring it up? Was the bakery also a church? No, it wasn't. There can be no legislation that allows a business to discriminate. That's where I'm sure Disney is drawing the line.

ETA: Why did they not proactively make this law before the gay marriages became legal? If its to protect the church against an agnostic, or a christian church from a muslim? Or a Mosque from a Christian? Those were all issues that have been around since the beginning of time, yet they only choose right now to worry about it? Seems a little like they are targeting a single group here, doesn't it?

 

[KaptKaveman]

Sigh....

Whatever happened to live and let live? The belief that you can act as you wish as long as it does not infringe on the inalienable rights of others?

Can we not leave politics in Washington, the state capitals, county seats, news, talk radio and at the ballot box? Do we really need to bring politics into every single thing? We go to Disney to get away from this stuff at least that is what I am hoping for on our next trip.

 

[dlavender]

I'll add here that I don't want to argue on the Dis boards about this bill. I am thankful that someone brought it up and gave me the opportunity to look into it. I'm also relieved to know that there have been no instances of ministers being forced to perform sacraments against their beliefs. I'm also happy that Disney was able to read through the bill and decide that there is obviously a hidden agenda in there. Thanks to those who brought it up and shared. It'll be a great victory for bakeries I guess who want to pick and choose who they bake cakes for. Imagine the application for the cake, you'll have to check off if you've been divorced, worked on the Sabbath, held any idols, etc.....There will certainly be some exclusive bakeries in GA. Client list of 2 or 3 people...Or maybe there is just one question they will want answered on that form. I think we all know what that will be.....And some say my head is in the sand.....I'll be sure to watch Georgia's "proactive" legislature for their future seeing abilities.....


I guess next up on the legislative agenda in GA will be a bill making alien invasions illegal....gotta be proactive!

 

[pixie921]

Can you to the law that denies them this right? Or an example of such a right being denied for a faith leader?

I'm pretty sure no priest is ever going to be compelled to perform a gay marriage, if doing so runs contra to his religious belief. A law that just says what existing law says, but adds some badly written and open-ended extra baggage to it, is either stupid, or just dishonest. Either way, it's dangerous.

The bill specifically defines a protection for ministers to keep them from being put in this position. With the current political climate, it's only a matter of time until ministers are sued in attempts to force them to comply. If you don't believe me, I will refer you to the current SCOTUS case of Little Sisters of the Poor, a strictly religious organization being sued by the government so that they can force them to provide abortifacients to employees in direct opposition to their faith. It's the same thing. Government wants to violate the 1st amendment rights of a religious order. It's blatantly unconstitutional.

It's also especially grievous when you take into account the DOJ sued on behalf of Muslim truck drivers who didn't want to deliver alcohol as part of the job they knowingly took because it supposedly violated the Muslims' religious beliefs. And the DOJ won. So Muslim faith is protected, but Catholic faith isn't, even when it's an actual religious order and not an employee of a trucking company.

 

[pixie921]

Sigh....

Whatever happened to live and let live? The belief that you can act as you wish as long as it does not infringe on the inalienable rights of others?

Can we not leave politics in Washington, the state capitals, county seats, news, talk radio and at the ballot box? Do we really need to bring politics into every single thing? We go to Disney to get away from this stuff at least that is what I am hoping for on our next trip.

That's what I loved about Disney, it was our happy escape from reality. But they are inserting themselves into politics and political agendas, and when a company does that, they are going to cause a reaction. I would prefer corporations keep their noses out of government and let the voters of each state decide issues, but Disney picked a dog in this fight, and for my family, they picked the wrong one.

 

[pixie921]

It'll be a great victory for bakeries I guess who want to pick and choose who they bake cakes for. Imagine the application for the cake, you'll have to check off if you've been divorced, worked on the Sabbath, held any idols, etc.....There will certainly be some exclusive bakeries in GA. Client list of 2 or 3 people...Or maybe there is just one question they will want answered on that form. I think we all know what that will be.....And some say my head is in the sand.....I'll be sure to watch Georgia's "proactive" legislature for their future seeing abilities.....


I guess next up on the legislative agenda in GA will be a bill making alien invasions illegal....gotta be proactive!

My point was that it's ridiculous for service industries like florists and bakeries and photographers to do exactly what you sarcastically stated above. But the Georgia bill is to proactively keep FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS for RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS in place. Again, if you think it's not an issue that we're into, I refer you to the SCOTUS case on Little Sisters of the Poor.

 

[dlavender]

My point was that it's ridiculous for service industries like florists and bakeries and photographers to do exactly what you sarcastically stated above. But the Georgia bill is to proactively keep FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS for RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS in place. Again, if you think it's not an issue that we're into, I refer you to the SCOTUS case on Little Sisters of the Poor.

So you don't think they should be able to discriminate? Me either. We are on the same page. Great. Just read about Little Sisters of the Poor. They are upset that they have to opt out of covering birth control? They don't want to fill out a form? Wow. Cry me a river. How could you feel bad for someone too lazy to fill out and mail a form.....Yeah, big violation of rights there. sheesh. I mean, to require a signature, with ink. That's big. I hope I never have to fill out a form...

ETA: So they don't have to pay for the coverage, which is what they believe infringes on their rights, but then are mad that the government and insurer would offer coverage? The Little Sisters do not have to pay for it since they object, which is their right, but they want to continue that right on into the individual? So they got what they wanted, don't have to pay for contraception since its against their religion. That's all the law protects. But now they are mad because the employees would still have access? Even though they don't have to pay for it? I'm sorry, that's crazy.

 

[BattyKoda]

This thread needs more CAPS!

 

[ponyboy]

I'm happy to see that Disney is taking a position on this. How Georgia responds remains to be seen.

I seriously doubt the State of Georgia cares if Disney stops filming there or not. It's one company that probably generates far less tax revenue filming there than people believe. They could probably raise fishing and hunting licenses a couple of bucks and recover all of the lost tax revenue plus some. I don't think Disney is going to have much of an effect on how it turns out.

 

[rteetz]

I seriously doubt the State of Georgia cares if Disney stops filming there or not. It's one company that probably generates far less tax revenue filming there than people believe. They could probably raise fishing and hunting licenses a couple of bucks and recover all of the lost tax revenue plus some. I don't think Disney is going to have much of an effect on how it turns out.

I believe there are several other companies stating they will leave Georgia if it happens.

 

[pixie921]

So you don't think they should be able to discriminate? Me either. We are on the same page. Great. Just read about Little Sisters of the Poor. They are upset that they have to opt out of covering birth control? They don't want to fill out a form? Wow. Cry me a river. How could you feel bad for someone too lazy to fill out and mail a form.....Yeah, big violation of rights there. sheesh. I mean, to require a signature, with ink. That's big. I hope I never have to fill out a form...

ETA: So they don't have to pay for the coverage, which is what they believe infringes on their rights, but then are mad that the government and insurer would offer coverage? The Little Sisters do not have to pay for it since they object, which is their right, but they want to continue that right on into the individual? So they got what they wanted, don't have to pay for contraception since its against their religion. That's all the law protects. But now they are mad because the employees would still have access? Even though they don't have to pay for it? I'm sorry, that's crazy.

It's called having principles. Their religion (which isn't my religion FWIW) prohibits birth control and abortion so they rightfully don't want any part in providing it. And if you think that they wouldn't end up paying for it in their premiums, you're kidding yourself. Money is fungible. And if someone wants to work for an organization that condones birth control and abortion, they probably shouldn't be working for the Catholic Church, don't you think??

 

[rteetz]

This is a lively discussion. However I must remind those in this thread that posting political ideals is against the rules. If it continues this thread will have to be closed.

 

[KaptKaveman]

A bit of history....

The Bill of Rights were not in the original Constitution, as some of the founders did not feel they were needed as nothing in the text of the constitution gave the Government the power to infringe upon free speech(for example). Other founders insisted they be added as a safeguard against a powerful central government. You might say they were added to proactively ensure certain rights of the people.