If Florida repeals "The Reedy Creek Improvement Charter", how does that change Disney going forward?

[starlite_]

Actually, I did. I said the question was regarding examples where Disney was injecting social issues. I answered that. I said I was not going to make this thread an issue about personal beliefs as that's going to go against the board rules.

Please lay off the personal attacks and try to stay to the topic on hand.

(Edit: and making Ariel adopted breaks Triton, but I actually asked if that was where Disney was going with that if you read my post before you decided to change my words).

I apologize I missed that post since you quoted me twice.
Not a personal attack, after all you can believe whatever you wish. I simply asked because no one seems to be able to give a straight answer as to why Disney "speaking out" on these social issues is so bad in their opinion. I suppose that's all the answer I need as well.

Peace out

 

[brightlined]

Note that I do not actually have a problem with Bob Chapek saying that he personally doesn't believe kids should be climbing trees and he wants to run for office based on that. More power to him. Or maybe he wants to talk to his elected officials. Again, whatever dude. I do not own stock in Bob. I do not have any shared of Chapek, Inc. I do not visit Bob in his vacation home. I don't eat dinner with him. I don't care.

I have a problem with DISNEY as a corporation butting into the legal system when it's not an issue that directly affects them and they are not run by elected officials and it's not a government entity.

In general, I agree with what you're saying here - I don't really want companies to interfere in terms of passing legislation.

But in this case, I think I gently disagree - only on the grounds that I think this does affect Disney as a corporation. I don't see this as a situation where Disney is trying to convert people's beliefs one way or another - I think they're acting to defend their employees. It's more like how a union would act on their members' behalf.

Creative people on the whole tend to lean liberal, and Disney's creatives also stand pretty strongly pro-LGBT. Given how nebulous this law was written to be, they have every reason to be concerned about its implementation. Disney's employees might not feel comfortable sending their kids to schools where their own lifestyles might be barred from even being saying out loud. (The issue is that's unclear what the law actually restricts, given how vague its language is.)

Disney is in the process of trying to move a bunch of their theme park creatives to Florida - something that would arguably benefit Florida on the whole - and a bill like this is a strong disincentive to that. If employees don't want to move - and possibly decide to leave the company because of this - that hurts Disney in the long run. Disney has every right to lobby politicians to stop that from happening.

A few years ago, Disney (and others) stepped in to lobby Governor Kemp of Georgia to veto a bill that would have allowed companies to deny services to people if they were gay. Disney has made Georgia a tremendous amount of money via film production, and a bill like that would affect a number of Disney employees directly.

Personally, I think it was fine for Disney to do that. Disney has Kemp's ear, because he knows how much money film production is bringing to the state and the new clout that the state carries as a result. Disney has every right to try to capitalize on that value.

I don't see this as being any notably different. (But I also think Iger handled that case significantly better than Chapek handled this.)

 

[DduzDis]

How much detail do you want, because biologically it gets really complicated.

Does a uterus make a woman?? Well, for some women maybe, but would you tell any woman who has had a hysterectomy that she is no longer a woman??? No? So that's not a great measure of a woman.
Do breasts make you a woman? What if you've had a mastectomy? Or have gynecomastia? That's not a good measure either.

Genetics... whooboy, the chromosomes can get even more complicated- XX typically we think of as female, but sometimes it doesn't work out that way and you have male external genitalia with XX chromosomes... or you can be XY and present completely female with all of the parts traditionally thought of as female, but your genes say male. Or XXY... or XO... XYYYY there are all kinds of issues there... and it's one of the reasons biology teachers who teach classes about chromosomes don't have their students do their own chromosomes anymore... what a shocking thing to find out- you're whole life you thought you were male/female, but gee, your chromosomes don't agree, so you must be what your chromosomes say, right?? No?

So maybe that's not the best way to define it either.

Hmm, long hair? Is that a woman thing only? fingernail polish?

Or can it just be something that people feel and oftentimes it will match with genitals or chromosomes or body parts, but not always... and that's why it's a spectrum.

Is female exactly the same as a woman? Also not really....

And this is precisely why we should continue to home school. Holy smokes.

 

[DCLMP]

And this is precisely why we should continue to home school. Holy smokes.

Try explaining all that to a five year- old. Good grief.

 

[DduzDis]

Try explaining all that to a five year- old. Good grief.

Way off topic and likely the final nail in the coffin for this thread, but this too. (For reference this is the beer belly man emoji that is apparently not allowed).

 

[Suger Mag]

And this is precisely why we should continue to home school. Holy smokes.

actually everything there is totally factual from a biology standpoint... and standard instruction in a college level biology class or at least my college level classes. Not sure why that is offensive to you. Yes people have chromosome number variations, or specific gene mutations, and yes people can also have hormonal variations. all of those can have profound affects on fetal development, physical appearance, and also as we are starting to understand perhaps even gender identity and orientation.

 

[TiggerBouncy]

In general, I agree with what you're saying here - I don't really want companies to interfere in terms of passing legislation.

But in this case, I think I gently disagree - only on the grounds that I think this does affect Disney as a corporation. I don't see this as a situation where Disney is trying to convert people's beliefs one way or another - I think they're acting to defend their employees. It's more like how a union would act on their members' behalf.

Creative people on the whole tend to lean liberal, and Disney's creatives also stand pretty strongly pro-LGBT. Given how nebulous this law was written to be, they have every reason to be concerned about its implementation. Disney's employees might not feel comfortable sending their kids to schools where their own lifestyles might be barred from even being saying out loud. (The issue is that's unclear what the law actually restricts, given how vague its language is.)

Disney is in the process of trying to move a bunch of their theme park creatives to Florida - something that would arguably benefit Florida on the whole - and a bill like this is a strong disincentive to that. If employees don't want to move - and possibly decide to leave the company because of this - that hurts Disney in the long run. Disney has every right to lobby politicians to stop that from happening.

A few years ago, Disney (and others) stepped in to lobby Governor Kemp of Georgia to veto a bill that would have allowed companies to deny services to people if they were gay. Disney has made Georgia a tremendous amount of money via film production, and a bill like that would affect a number of Disney employees directly.

Personally, I think it was fine for Disney to do that. Disney has Kemp's ear, because he knows how much money film production is bringing to the state and the new clout that the state carries as a result. Disney has every right to try to capitalize on that value.

I don't see this as being any notably different. (But I also think Iger handled that case significantly better than Chapek handled this.)

I understand your point. It's a valid point. It's a good point.

Here is where my issue lies. I am a shareholder (although right now I wish I was not). Like I said, nothing said here is anything illegal, or immoral or anything like that. So I can only speak based on my own self interests. As a shareholder and thus partial owner, Disney's economic power and thus it's views represent my economic power and views. My self interests in this area lay in Disney showing a profit.

I dare say that anyone with half a brain could have predicted that if you stood up in a highly conservative state that elected the people who represent that state and said you have a problem with this law, that approximately 50% of the people are going to disagree with you (and 50% of the people are going to agree with you).

By extension this means that 50% OF YOUR CUSTOMERS - the people who pay you - and thus the people who pay me - are going to be angered. IN THIS COUNTRY AT THIS TIME, that's the outlook you are at. EVEN BETTER... By stepping into this fire, Chapek not only managed to anger 50%.... he angered EVERYONE (a feat I still can not figure out).

SPEAK if you want to speak. As a human being. Like Musk does. Go out just like Musk and run your bloomin' mouth all you want. He does it. He's famous for it. Tesla gets very little blowback from it because he does not speak AS THE COMPANY.

But do not speak out as the company because that represents my self interests and you are now claiming to represent ME - which you don't.

And to be clear, I am not really talking about my little slice of Disney. I can (and in fact have) sold some of my stock. I am not ready to divest my DVC.... but I am angry about it. I am talking about the fact that as a company I love Disney, and it hurts my heart to have my company dragged through this political mud. To have my company - the company that I grew up loving to be speaking out about something that I do not agree with.

I can handle the CEO speaking out about the issue. That's different. Bob is not my CEO. I did not grow up with him. He's just the person entrusted with the steering wheel (currently). I can't handle my company doing it.

Can you understand where I am coming from?

 

[DduzDis]

actually everything there is totally factual from a biology standpoint... and standard instruction in a college level biology class or at least my college level classes. Not sure why that is offensive to you. Yes people have chromosome number variations, or specific gene mutations, and yes people can also have hormonal variations. all of those can have profound affects on fetal development, physical appearance, and also as we are starting to understand perhaps even gender identity and orientation.

I'll leave this for another board entry and let the original topic commence.

 

[DCLMP]

I understand your point. It's a valid point. It's a good point.

Here is where my issue lies. I am a shareholder (although right now I wish I was not). Like I said, nothing said here is anything illegal, or immoral or anything like that. So I can only speak based on my own self interests. As a shareholder and thus partial owner, Disney's economic power and thus it's views represent my economic power and views. My self interests in this area lay in Disney showing a profit.

I dare say that anyone with half a brain could have predicted that if you stood up in a highly conservative state that elected the people who represent that state and said you have a problem with this law, that approximately 50% of the people are going to disagree with you (and 50% of the people are going to agree with you).

By extension this means that 50% OF YOUR CUSTOMERS - the people who pay you - and thus the people who pay me - are going to be angered. IN THIS COUNTRY AT THIS TIME, that's the outlook you are at. EVEN BETTER... By stepping into this fire, Chapek not only managed to anger 50%.... he angered EVERYONE (a feat I still can not figure out).

SPEAK if you want to speak. As a human being. Like Musk does. Go out just like Musk and run your bloomin' mouth all you want. He does it. He's famous for it.

But do not speak out as the company because that represents my self interests and you are now claiming to represent ME - which you don't.

And to be clear, I am not really talking about my little slice of Disney. I can (and in fact have) sold some of my stock. I am not ready to divest my DVC.... but I am angry about it. I am talking about the fact that as a company I love Disney, and it hurts my heart to have my company dragged through this political mud. To have my company - the company that I grew up loving to be speaking out about something that I do not agree with.

I can handle the CEO speaking out about the issue. That's different. Bob is not my CEO. I did not grow up with him. He's just the person entrusted with the steering wheel (currently). I can't handle my company doing it.

Can you understand where I am coming from?

I wish they would focus on fixing genie plus, their frequent ride breakdowns, poor housekeeping, their IT issues, and their 8 hour hold times at Disney cruise line. That’s is what they should be focusing on.

 

[roctavia]

Try explaining all that to a five year- old. Good grief.

But you don't need to explain that to a 5 year old. A 5 year old will be just fine with boy/girl/not a boy or girl. They will shrug their shoulders and go about their day, it's not complicated at that age. Just like same sex marriage isn't complicated at that age. An adult loves another adult and they got married. That's it. Kids aren't thinking about how body parts fit together in opposite or same sex relationships, so it shouldn't matter if someone is gay or straight or something else. They also don't need to think about/worry about what is going on in other people's pants unless it's their own body, and that's something not for discussion at school anyway.

 

[TiggerBouncy]

I apologize I missed that post since you quoted me twice.
Not a personal attack, after all you can believe whatever you wish. I simply asked because no one seems to be able to give a straight answer as to why Disney "speaking out" on these social issues is so bad in their opinion. I suppose that's all the answer I need as well.

Peace out

Gladly Accepted.

I’d be happy to discuss my personal views in private. This just isn’t the place for that conversation. If you got to know them and discussed with an open mind, you’d probably find them ‘reasonable’.

 

[DduzDis]

But you don't need to explain that to a 5 year old. A 5 year old will be just fine with boy/girl/not a boy or girl. They will shrug their shoulders and go about their day, it's not complicated at that age. Just like same sex marriage isn't complicated at that age. An adult loves another adult and they got married. That's it. Kids aren't thinking about how body parts fit together in opposite or same sex relationships, so it shouldn't matter if someone is gay or straight or something else. They also don't need to think about/worry about what is going on in other people's pants unless it's their own body, and that's something not for discussion at school anyway.

There are different views than what you have written here, but this is not the forum.

 

[SuzErwin]

Yep - if I have to preview everything Disney puts out for children before I trust it, that will be the end of our Disney+ subscription. It's sad when those who brought us 'The Wonderful World of Disney' can no longer be trusted for wholesome content.

You mean like Snow White?

Snow White starts with a stepmother abusing her stepdaughter. The stepmother later moves to attempted assassination.

The Prince takes one listen/one look at Snow White and decides he's in love with someone he doesn't know at all - in other words, the same behavior exhibited by stalkers.

Snow White trespasses and breaks into a cottage. Not very wholesome, nor legal.

She then proceeds to live with seven (!) men without the benefit of matrimony.

She eats food offered by a stranger.

The prince, who the narrator tell us has been searching for her - in other words, stalking the woman he frightened by the well - kisses the comatose Snow White who is physically unable to give consent. This is excused in the story because it's "true love's kiss," sending the message love is based on physical appearance and royal titles.

In the end, she agrees to marry a man she doesn't know - they've exchanged a few song lyrics and a dove - because he's wealthy, has a nice house, and a socially prominent position.

Yeah, those old Disney films had nothing but kid-friendly healthy messages...

 

[DduzDis]

You mean like Snow White?

Snow White starts with a stepmother abusing her stepdaughter. The stepmother later moves to attempted assassination.

The Prince takes one listen/one look at Snow White and decides he's in love with someone he doesn't know at all - in other words, the same behavior exhibited by stalkers.

Snow White trespasses and breaks into a cottage. Not very wholesome, nor legal.

She then proceeds to live with seven (!) men without the benefit of matrimony.

She eats food offered by a stranger.

The prince, who the narrator tell us has been searching for her - in other words, stalking the woman he frightened by the well - kisses the comatose Snow White who is physically unable to give consent. This is excused in the story because it's "true love's kiss," sending the message love is based on physical appearance and royal titles.

In the end, she agrees to marry a man she doesn't know - they've exchanged a few song lyrics and a dove - because he's wealthy, has a nice house, and a socially prominent position.

Yeah, those old Disney films had nothing but kid-friendly healthy messages...

I never mentioned anything about Snow White but nice try. I'm out.

 

[P'colaBeachBum]

I understand your point. It's a valid point. It's a good point.

Here is where my issue lies. I am a shareholder (although right now I wish I was not). Like I said, nothing said here is anything illegal, or immoral or anything like that. So I can only speak based on my own self interests. As a shareholder and thus partial owner, Disney's economic power and thus it's views represent my economic power and views. My self interests in this area lay in Disney showing a profit.

I dare say that anyone with half a brain could have predicted that if you stood up in a highly conservative state that elected the people who represent that state and said you have a problem with this law, that approximately 50% of the people are going to disagree with you (and 50% of the people are going to agree with you).

By extension this means that 50% OF YOUR CUSTOMERS - the people who pay you - and thus the people who pay me - are going to be angered. IN THIS COUNTRY AT THIS TIME, that's the outlook you are at. EVEN BETTER... By stepping into this fire, Chapek not only managed to anger 50%.... he angered EVERYONE (a feat I still can not figure out).

SPEAK if you want to speak. As a human being. Like Musk does. Go out just like Musk and run your bloomin' mouth all you want. He does it. He's famous for it. Tesla gets very little blowback from it because he does not speak AS THE COMPANY.

But do not speak out as the company because that represents my self interests and you are now claiming to represent ME - which you don't.

And to be clear, I am not really talking about my little slice of Disney. I can (and in fact have) sold some of my stock. I am not ready to divest my DVC.... but I am angry about it. I am talking about the fact that as a company I love Disney, and it hurts my heart to have my company dragged through this political mud. To have my company - the company that I grew up loving to be speaking out about something that I do not agree with.

I can handle the CEO speaking out about the issue. That's different. Bob is not my CEO. I did not grow up with him. He's just the person entrusted with the steering wheel (currently). I can't handle my company doing it.

Can you understand where I am coming from?

As a shareholder, growing up with Disney, going to DL in the early 60’s and WDW since ‘72 I agree with you 100%. Well said!

 

[brightlined]

I can handle the CEO speaking out about the issue. That's different. Bob is not my CEO. I did not grow up with him. He's just the person entrusted with the steering wheel (currently). I can't handle my company doing it.

Can you understand where I am coming from?

100%. And, honestly, I blame Chapek more than anything. Not that it necessarily would have gone perfectly under Iger, but Iger has always shown a gift for reading the room and quietly making things happen. Chapek does not have anything close to that skill.

What I think would have happened under Iger - as soon as this bill came up, I think Iger would have quietly moved behind the scenes and talked to Desantis and other representatives to try and sway them against it. Whether or not it would have worked is anyone's guess - but there were certainly a few amendments (including one put forward by a Republican representative) that might have gotten more play if someone more politically-minded had been working the room. (The best time to sway things is before it gets passed.) If that failed, I think Iger would have started acting more publicly - but, again, long before it was clear that Desantis would sign it.

Chapek, on the other hand, decided to "stay neutral". Politically speaking, neutrality is usually the worst move you can possibly make. For all intents and purposes, it's a support for whatever it is (since you're not actively against it). The added bonus is that you end up looking like a coward.

By the time the employees pointed out that "neutrality" was bullsh*t, there really wasn't another move for Chapek to make. The bill was already destined to be signed. Trying to use public force to get Desantis to veto it wouldn't work - he just would have looked weak if he'd done it. (Kemp's veto in Georgia was comparatively quiet - to the point that people don't remember it even happened.) It was easier at that point for Desantis and Republicans to make Disney part of the "woke".

Just one more notch in Chapek's cluelessness. Disney really can't do anything about it now, especially now that they've made their position public. Chapek managed to piss everyone off - employees, shareholders, and the state government. That feels like a unusual gift in its own right.

 

[nuts]

Wow, I step away for a few days and this happens! Okay, let me help reign this one back in. Let's discuss a non-controversial subject: "Masks, should they still be required on rides?"

 

[starlite_]

You mean like Snow White?

Snow White starts with a stepmother abusing her stepdaughter. The stepmother later moves to attempted assassination.

The Prince takes one listen/one look at Snow White and decides he's in love with someone he doesn't know at all - in other words, the same behavior exhibited by stalkers.

Snow White trespasses and breaks into a cottage. Not very wholesome, nor legal.

She then proceeds to live with seven (!) men without the benefit of matrimony.

She eats food offered by a stranger.

The prince, who the narrator tell us has been searching for her - in other words, stalking the woman he frightened by the well - kisses the comatose Snow White who is physically unable to give consent. This is excused in the story because it's "true love's kiss," sending the message love is based on physical appearance and royal titles.

In the end, she agrees to marry a man she doesn't know - they've exchanged a few song lyrics and a dove - because he's wealthy, has a nice house, and a socially prominent position.

Yeah, those old Disney films had nothing but kid-friendly healthy messages...

Plus she is literally 14 years old. One year older than Mei from Turning Red.

Personally don't care since it is after all a fantasy movie but if folks wanna nitpick at least be consistent.

You know, so many folks here that say they love Disney and messages of kindness and love and family and "wholesomeness"... and yet lots of them aren't preaching any of these things...

 

[Disney Bobby]

Nobody should be "preaching" anything about sexual orientation or gender identity to a 5 year old.

THAT is the problem, not the solution. We have overly sexualized our society and failed to protect our children from these concept that they can't really process due to their lack of maturity. Just asking for trouble and confusion.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Shares are down 26.5% YTD.