Disney is Threatening to Cease Filming

[JaxDad]

and yet they filmed parts of the latest Star Wars movie in the UAE, where homosexuality may be punished by death...

 

[Eoghann]

Or just maybe Disney legitimately thinks that the rights of all people should be respected and is making as much of a statement it can with its corporate muscle - i.e. voting with its wallet. Corporations have the right of free speech as much as individuals in the USA.

I didn't query their right to do it, I merely observed there this is not a purely moral stand they are taking. If it was and continue to be many other times when they should have done similar things. PR value and the potential for any negatives have been factored in to what they did.

 

[IndyRnRfan]

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?

 

[adam.adbe]

Doing business in a state doesn't give you the right to blackmail or threaten said state over possible legislation or laws.

It's not blackmail. It's freedom of speech. They're expressing an opinion, and making clear that their business choices will be weighed against choices made by a state in which they do business.

We all get to choose where we spend our dollars. Sometimes those decisions are informed by price, sometimes by politics, and sometimes simple pique. Corporations are little different in this regard.

 

[adam.adbe]

then to pump tens of billions of dollars into the economy of China... that's just a tad hypocritical.

There are many reasons to question the wisdom of that project, and certainly there is an element of hypocrisy that comes into play whenever businesses operate globally. In Disney's defense here though, ignoring China simply wasn't an option for them. If Disney had opted not to engage, the Chinese government would have simply allowed unfettered IP abuse, with knock of products, media, and parks. As it is, by making a deal, the CPC is motivated to limit the levels of IP abuse, protecting Disney's interests not just in China but worldwide.

That's an effective sword China holds over the heads of all companies, IMV.

 

[PBB]

I don't really want to get too political here, but we stopped going to CFA because we found out that some profits from CFA were being sent to some nasty charities that I just couldn't support. I didn't feel comfortable contributing money to a company that then turned around and used some of the profits from my money that i gave them, to support the type of charities they supported.

We returned to CFA after they stopped supporting some of those charities.

I have no problem with their personal believes, its a free country, and they can believe what they want to. However if the money i give a company is being funneled to something I think its wrong, then I just simply don't feel comfortable giving my money to that company.

Just as much as CFA has the right to support the Defense of Marriage Act, as an American, I too have the right to not support that company for whatever reason I choose.



Companies are doing this because they know that a large part of their customer base will boycott them if they don't take a stand against this. Companies have to be very careful about how they do business these days, many people outside of the south, and even in the south are upset with many of the laws that are being passed.

I hope that wasn't too political, if it was, I apologize.

Never heard of any such nasty charities that are supported by CFA.......Unless adopting and providing orphans homes nasty.....(Truett Cathy was an Orphan). You have every right to choose what businesses you support. The president of CFA made the statement of his own personal support of DOMA not as President of CFA. Plus CFA is not owned by shareholders. It is owned by the Cathy family. So, they can say what they want and if it effects there business it is there own business that is harmed. Whereas Disney management makes such comment the shareholders equity (like mine) is harmed.

 

[ChipnDale79]

Never heard of any such nasty charities that are supported by CFA.......Unless adopting and providing orphans homes nasty.....(Truett Cathy was an Orphan). You have every right to choose what businesses you support. The president of CFA made the statement of his own personal support of DOMA not as President of CFA. Plus CFA is not owned by shareholders. It is owned by the Cathy family. So, they can say what they want and if it effects there business it is there own business that is harmed. Whereas Disney management makes such comment the shareholders equity (like mine) is harmed.

I've got no problems with him donating money to charities, especially ones that help orphans. Unfortunately when you're the CEO of a company, sometimes its hard to wear 2 hats (NASCAR's CEO can probably tell you all about that with the stuff he's going through lately). When you're making money off of a company, the money i spend on your products directly effect that person. So to me I don't want to give my money that will in some way, make it's way to a charity I don't agree with.

I have to give major props to the Cathy family, once they understood that some of their customers didn't agree with this, they did back off from it. I want it to be clear that i have nothing personally against them, I just didnt agree with them on a policy and couldn't support them financially at that time. BTW, I'm having Chick fil a for lunch today.

Its interesting you pointed out a charity that i believe most of us would agree with, and if you didnt agree with that charity, you almost look cold. That's not the one I was talking about, of course I want to help orphans.

FWIW if you want to continue this through PM, i'll be happy to, i also dont want to risk this thread getting shut down.

 

[adam.adbe]

Whereas Disney management makes such comment the shareholders equity (like mine) is harmed.

If you think this is a strategically unwise move for Disney (and notably more so than any of the other asinine things the non-studio parts of Disney have been doing of late), or if you just disagree with the politics of it and want to take a stand, then exercise your rights, and move your money elsewhere.

 

[OKW Lover]

Whereas Disney management makes such comment the shareholders equity (like mine) is harmed.

Or helped.

 

[Tom P.]

I've got no problems with him donating money to charities, especially ones that help orphans. Unfortunately when you're the CEO of a company, sometimes its hard to wear 2 hats (NASCAR's CEO can probably tell you all about that with the stuff he's going through lately). When you're making money off of a company, the money i spend on your products directly effect that person. So to me I don't want to give my money that will in some way, make it's way to a charity I don't agree with.

That's a little impractical in practice, though. Sure, the CEO is the most visible person associated with a company. But they're certainly not the only one.

Walt Disney World alone, not counting the rest of the company, has approximately 58,000 employees. I bet a good number of them give to organizations you vehemently disagree with. Yet every time you buy a ticket to a Disney park, you are supporting them.

 

[PortMickey]

Disney doesn't care, they just want to look like they care. Otherwise they would never be doing business in Communist China. Now their customers can feel all warm and fuzzy because Disney took a stand against evil Georgia. They would move all the production to Louisiana anyway if it saved them five cents. Why did they move out of Los Angles in the first place, Oh yeah, money. It's always about the money. That is the whole reason the company exist.

 

[evenrude]

Read the Bill!!!!!....This has nothing to do with conducting business in Georgia, public companies should remain neutral on legislation unless it directly impacts the ability for them to deliver the most value to shareholders. If Georgia offers the best value to Disney to produce a movie as a shareholder I would be upset if they increased production costs over a political stance or statement. If you want to take a stand own a private company and do it with your own money.

 

[Tom P.]

Disney doesn't care, they just want to look like they care. Otherwise they would never be doing business in Communist China. Now their customers can feel all warm and fuzzy because Disney took a stand against evil Georgia. They would move all the production to Louisiana anyway if it saved them five cents. Why did they move out of Los Angles in the first place, Oh yeah, money. It's always about the money. That is the whole reason the company exist.

Exactly. It's like companies pushing the reusable bags instead of the disposable plastic ones. Ooooh, they care about the environment. No, they really don't. They care about the fact that (a) they can get some good PR by appearing to care, (b) they don't have to pay for all those disposable bags anymore, and (c) now they can actually charge you when you buy the reusable bags.

 

[ChipnDale79]

That's a little impractical in practice, though. Sure, the CEO is the most visible person associated with a company. But they're certainly not the only one.

Walt Disney World alone, not counting the rest of the company, has approximately 58,000 employees. I bet a good number of them give to organizations you vehemently disagree with. Yet every time you buy a ticket to a Disney park, you are supporting them.

I'm not going to go around polling Disney employees what they support, I see where you're trying to go with that. A CEO has more direct control of a company that an employee of Disney World does. Disney employees (that i know of) don't create foundations with their paychecks to distribute money to charities. That's what Chick Fil A did, they created a foundation, funded by funds received from Chick Fil A and donated that money to charities that tried to "pray the gay away".

Just as you'll argue the Cathy family has the right to say whatever they want, I also have the right to direct my funds in the direction I choose. If I want to avoid a place of business because of the political practices of their Corporate Governance, then I have all the right in the world to do so.

On the clock or off the clock, CEOs of companies represent their corporations on a 24/7 basis, so when they stand behind a microphone and say something, they represent their company.

 

[pixie921]

If I understand correctly, the criticism of this bill is less about the marriage issue (although that was the initial purpose of the bill) and more about the fact the way it's written could be interpreted quite widely. The worry is that a business or even a hospital, because they have a religious base, could deny services to gay people because they could argue it is against their religion. I think it is apparent how that could be problematic and discriminatory. I'm not responding because I want to debate, and frankly I agree with you. I don't think clergy should be forced to perform ceremonies against their conscience or beliefs. If I understand correctly clergy is already protected under the law and can do as they choose in terms of such things. Anyway, like I said, I'm not looking to debate, and I don't disagree with your opinion. I just want to make it clear that criticism of this bill is less about the belief that clergy should be forced to perform gay marriages against their will, and more about the belief that a religious hospital should not be able to deny treatment to a gay person because of their beliefs. I don't want to you feel attacked by the criticism of this bill, because that's not what it's about.

I really appreciate your reply. I absolutely believe that no one should be denied service at a business or hospital based on anything; my sole issue with the bill is that it states (at least this is how I read it) that it will offer protection for ministers who feel officiating at particular services would violate sincerely held beliefs. I fully believe that if one is in business whether it be flowers or cakes or anything of that type, it's wrong to deny service based on religious beliefs. If one is so religious that one can't service a portion of the public, one should find a different line of work! But for a faith leader to be put in a position where they would have to perform a sacrament in violation of their faith ... that's a bridge too far for me.

I'm struggling with this because we love Disney, but their business decisions of late -- the whole IT worker fiasco (we felt that one particularly because my husband is in IT and has been in the same position so I know exactly what those displaced workers are going through), Shanghai, and now this -- are putting us in the position of supporting a company that we disagree with on many levels. Disney trips were an integral part of our family life the whole time our son was growing up and it breaks my heart to see a place we loved being driven by people whose policies are getting more and more distasteful. We are seriously considering selling our DVC membership and putting Disney in our past.

 

[pixie921]

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?

I guess I missed the part in our country where we can force ministers to perform sacraments that are against their beliefs. Oh, wait -- I didn't miss that. It's protected in the CONSTITUTION. No one is trying to discriminate, this is about protecting 1st Amendment rights for sincerely held beliefs. That's it. It's getting twisted by the media and those with agendas, apparently like Disney.

 

[Tom P.]

Part of me really wishes a mod would come along and clang this thread shut. We're clearly in political territory, if nothing else, and I can see this going downhill fast from here.

But, as long as we're on the subject, Florida already has a law on the books very similar to Georgia's proposed law. Let's see Disney hold firm to their principles and close Walt Disney World.

 

[dlavender]

I guess I missed the part in our country where we can force ministers to perform sacraments that are against their beliefs. Oh, wait -- I didn't miss that. It's protected in the CONSTITUTION. No one is trying to discriminate, this is about protecting 1st Amendment rights for sincerely held beliefs. That's it. It's getting twisted by the media and those with agendas, apparently like Disney.

Please excuse my ignorance. I haven't had the chance to read this bill over. Were ministers being forced to perform sacraments before the bill? Like, right now, are they being forced?

 

[adam.adbe]

But for a faith leader to be put in a position where they would have to perform a sacrament in violation of their faith ... that's a bridge too far for me.

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.

 

[adam.adbe]

But, as long as we're on the subject, Florida already has a law on the books very similar to Georgia's proposed law. Let's see Disney hold firm to their principles and close Walt Disney World.

Seriously? How are those two things even remotely comparable?