Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

news.bloombergtax.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 220 posts

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#31

Post by jrmg »

BryantD wrote: post #25
mikeryan wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not exactly it. Disney publicly criticized the new Florida “Don’t say gay” bill. And then said they’d no longer donate to FL legislature. They’d made a 50k donation to governor DeSantis in the past so it’s more about them NOT making donations. This act by Disney had to be public or it wouldn’t have had any weight. Making those donations privately probably would defeat the purpose of showing support to the legi…

And just to make sure this is clear: they aren't making donations to anyone in Florida, Republicans or Democrats alike. The Republican response to this was to punish Disney. We can't know what the Democratic response would have been since Democrats aren't in charge of anything in Florida. "Keep donating or we'll punish you" is an interesting stance.

”Keep donating or we'll punish you" is an interesting stance.

It can’t be legal, surely?

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#32

Post by danaris »

imperio59 wrote: post #24
mikeryan wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not exactly it. Disney publicly criticized the new Florida “Don’t say gay” bill. And then said they’d no longer donate to FL legislature. They’d made a 50k donation to governor DeSantis in the past so it’s more about them NOT making donations. This act by Disney had to be public or it wouldn’t have had any weight. Making those donations privately probably would defeat the purpose of showing support to the legi…

Willing to bet you didn't read what the actual bill says or does. It does not say "don't say gay", it says sexual education to kids should not happen before a certain grade (3rd grade IIRC) and be age appropriate, which should be non controversial unless you have some weird notion that a 7 year old needs to be taught about sex.

We teach kids about heterosexuality (or, more accurately, heteroromance) from a very young age. It's everywhere in our culture.

Teaching children that there is another option is not inherently sexual in nature, and the continued push to declare the very existence of non-heteroromantic orientations "sexual", and thus inappropriate, is a big part of the bigotry and oppression queer people of all types face.

No one is advocating that we show kids gay porn. They are advocating that we teach kids that being gay, bi, trans, aromantic, or anywhere else on the various spectra, is all fine and normal.

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#33

Post by twic »

michaelt wrote: post #21
tablespoon wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would be a shame if current legislators could restrict future legislators by adding infinite year bonds to all new laws with promises the law will never change as long as that bond exists. Isn't it some core legal principle that legislature can't do that, and always has the power to reverse itself? This article feels like it's built on a priority inversion, like debt terms are really the supreme law of the land,…

> Isn't it some core legal principle that legislature can't do that, and always has the power to reverse itself? The problem with having supreme power to break any contract without consequences is that nobody will make contracts with you any more. For this reason, many states have (e.g.) clauses in their constitutions saying they won't. Of course, the legislature usually has the power to amend the constitution.

I'm moderately sure that the UK government has that power; we have no equivalent of the contract clause here. People still make contracts with the UK government.

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#34

Post by KarlKemp »

vmception wrote: post #5

All of Disney's troubles are coming from retaliation to their direct political donations. and this is why you donate anonymously. everyone likes to imagine Russians and Saudi's swaying US politics - the boogeyman du jour - but this is the more realistic outcome: retaliation by the incumbent party. Just form the LLC, donate, shut it down before that state's reporting requirements come into effect. for coders: an LLC i…

Disney doesn't have much trouble: see headline.

And why are you advocating for the corrupt, ineffective, possibly illegal, and cowardly alternative?

You think Disney is entirely inept? Does their courage somehow scare you? "Please, dear corporation, wear a helmet"?

They took a stance, they'll be fine, they have a spine.

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#36

Post by zmgsabst »

bandyaboot wrote: post #23

I don’t think the elimination of the Reedy Creek district is meant to ever actually occur. The point is twofold. To send a message that dissent from the business community will not be tolerated. And, to keep stoking the fires of the culture wars. When they get their people denouncing the opposition as “groomers”, they are achieving their objective.

No post body was provided.

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#37

Post by vmception »

KarlKemp wrote: post #34
vmception wrote: post #5

All of Disney's troubles are coming from retaliation to their direct political donations. and this is why you donate anonymously. everyone likes to imagine Russians and Saudi's swaying US politics - the boogeyman du jour - but this is the more realistic outcome: retaliation by the incumbent party. Just form the LLC, donate, shut it down before that state's reporting requirements come into effect. for coders: an LLC i…

Disney doesn't have much trouble: see headline. And why are you advocating for the corrupt, ineffective, possibly illegal, and cowardly alternative? You think Disney is entirely inept? Does their courage somehow scare you? "Please, dear corporation, wear a helmet"? They took a stance, they'll be fine, they have a spine.

It wasn't really about Disney it was about your own movements and using them as a cautionary tale.

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#38

Post by bandyaboot »

zmgsabst wrote: post #36
bandyaboot wrote: post #23

I don’t think the elimination of the Reedy Creek district is meant to ever actually occur. The point is twofold. To send a message that dissent from the business community will not be tolerated. And, to keep stoking the fires of the culture wars. When they get their people denouncing the opposition as “groomers”, they are achieving their objective.

Quoted post unavailable.

I think it’s interesting that you took my comment, rewrote it in your head, and responded to your made up version of what I said.

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#39

Post by maxerickson »

imperio59 wrote: post #24
mikeryan wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not exactly it. Disney publicly criticized the new Florida “Don’t say gay” bill. And then said they’d no longer donate to FL legislature. They’d made a 50k donation to governor DeSantis in the past so it’s more about them NOT making donations. This act by Disney had to be public or it wouldn’t have had any weight. Making those donations privately probably would defeat the purpose of showing support to the legi…

Willing to bet you didn't read what the actual bill says or does. It does not say "don't say gay", it says sexual education to kids should not happen before a certain grade (3rd grade IIRC) and be age appropriate, which should be non controversial unless you have some weird notion that a 7 year old needs to be taught about sex.

Why do parents, who have a voice in how schools are run (elections) need to be able to sue school districts for something they are not doing and do not plan to do?

Like educators are already focused on providing age appropriate education, what is the point of this bill?

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#40

Post by splitstud »

BryantD wrote: post #25
mikeryan wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not exactly it. Disney publicly criticized the new Florida “Don’t say gay” bill. And then said they’d no longer donate to FL legislature. They’d made a 50k donation to governor DeSantis in the past so it’s more about them NOT making donations. This act by Disney had to be public or it wouldn’t have had any weight. Making those donations privately probably would defeat the purpose of showing support to the legi…

And just to make sure this is clear: they aren't making donations to anyone in Florida, Republicans or Democrats alike. The Republican response to this was to punish Disney. We can't know what the Democratic response would have been since Democrats aren't in charge of anything in Florida. "Keep donating or we'll punish you" is an interesting stance.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN