Disney May Pull Marvel Productions From Georgia Over Anti-Gay Law

[marioandsonic]

You know, everyone always says that Disney is an evil corporate empire, which...okay, that's pretty much true. But at the same time, they tend to be champions of social issues.

Good for them.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Honestly until they're willing to do a complete 100% pull-out of the Chinese market I don't believe this for a second and am calling their bluff.

In this case, it's a guarantee the law isn't going in and Disney is just riding a sure thing for added publicity. No risk, all reward.


...

Pretty much this. Forgive me for being a cynical arsehole here, but I'm skeptical that Disney is doing this, or any other moral grandstanding, out of the goodness of their hearts. That's not to say this isn't still a good thing, but I really think they'd go all "no gays allowed" if it were the profitable thing to do.

 

[jklinders]

Well if Georgia passes this law and it somehow manages to pass a constitutional check (good luck with that Georgia, last I checked the US Constitution was still king) bully for them. If Disney follows through with their threat in that event, bully for them too.

I'm just sit over here and snicker at the apparently numerous businesses that are doing so well that they can afford to turn away clients on this basis and be so public about it. Where I work we hold our noses and do what we need to keep people happy, because that's what you have to do in a competitive market. Everywhere I look I see small businesses crying that they can't afford to pay the current let alone higher minimum and holiday wages but they can turn away clients bases on the sex of the person they are marrying. Fascinating.

 

[ASnogarD]

This sets a horrible precedent...

Disney is levering its corporate influence to dictate local government laws, this time its something the people can get behind but what if its something less obviously odious to the masses?

Corporations controlling governments, but then again that is actually what happens behind the scenes with lobbying and campaign 'donations' and 'gifts'... just far more blatant.

Regarding the actual bill, its hilariously ironic in a land of the free its illegal to control who you do business with, and when a new law is proposed to allow the owner of said business the option of controlling who can enter, big business threatens the livelihood and lifestyles of its employees and local support infrastructure unless the new law is squashed.

Feeling Free my American friends ? Oh, wait you better get a lawyer to check your answer, or you may face court charges for some offence or another.

 

[TrulyBritish]

This is how you fight discrimination. Not with pointless Facebook sharing, and online petitions, but having a big company threatening to take its business elsewhere.

I know right? Thats exactly how companies buy politicians... capitalism is such a beautifull thing.

Remind yourselfe of what you said here next time comcast bullys a state/city/politicians into being their little *****.

This power these international corporations hold is a double edged sword that usually does NOT swing in favor of the consumer/general population but in favor of the company. most often to the detriment of the consumer. (See disney using its power to fuck up copyright law in its favor)

But hey! This time they did it for the "right" reasons yes? So they are the hero in this case right? I mean private corporations publicly trying to bully democratic elected people into doing their bidding is how the system should work right?

Yeah, I can't decide where I really stand on this issue. One the one hand I think it would be hypocritical of me to cheer this one when I've condemned large corporations using their clout to potentially subvert the will of the people (the people who presumably voted these politicians into office). On the other hand if we're going to allow corporations to weird that kind of power and those same politicians aren't going to do anything to prevent that then I'd rather they use that power for something good.
There's also the fact that I support the right of the people to voice their opinion on whatever legislature is being considered, and if Disney has a presence within the state (presumably hiring people from that state and bringing money in) then I kind of have to acknowledge that Disney has every right to decide if they want to support that Bill or not.

 

[Albino Boo]

Disney care so much about gays rights they show films in countries where being gay is a criminal offence. Gay rights are important as long as it cost us no money, yeah right grandstanding halfwits.

 

[Cryselle]

Here's my way of looking at it. There are acceptable and unacceptable ways for a corporation to throw around it's weight and influence. Saying "If you do this, we will leave" is an acceptable way. There is, and should be, no obligation for a private corporation to operate in an area they do not want to be in. It's not 'subverting the will of the people' to say "Look folks, you can do what you want, but we don't want to be somewhere that does this". So kudos to Disney for this. However, as another example from the same corporation, Disney's pressuring to change copyright laws to it's benefit was all about calling in favors from politicians whose campaigns they donated to. That was straight up influence peddling, and was a rather shitty thing for them to do.

It is in no way unethical for a corporation to have interests and put them forward. It's all in the manner in which it is done.

 

[ASnogarD]

Here's my way of looking at it. There are acceptable and unacceptable ways for a corporation to throw around it's weight and influence. Saying "If you do this, we will leave" is an acceptable way. There is, and should be, no obligation for a private corporation to operate in an area they do not want to be in. It's not 'subverting the will of the people' to say "Look folks, you can do what you want, but we don't want to be somewhere that does this". So kudos to Disney for this. However, as another example from the same corporation, Disney's pressuring to change copyright laws to it's benefit was all about calling in favors from politicians whose campaigns they donated to. That was straight up influence peddling, and was a rather shitty thing for them to do.

It is in no way unethical for a corporation to have interests and put them forward. It's all in the manner in which it is done.

They are not simply 'leaving', they are threatening the livelihood of the majority of its staff, and the local support business that cater to the business and / or local community that is bolstered by the staff hired by the company.
This action can chain react and disrupt a lot of people who are not able to influence anything, except public opinion polls and thus it hits the politician... this is blatant threatening and abusing the local economic climates.

The law is incorrectly reported as a ANTI GAY law, its not, it is a law that COULD be used to deny GAY people or deny WHITE people, or people that like PINK MOHAWKS, or UNION JACKS shaved on their skulls.
The escapist 'journalist' has opted to make the report a click bait by focusing on what the law COULD do.
The law would give business owner the OPTION to deny entry based on what the OWNER decides.
How is this less freedom than insisting anyone should be allowed entry no matter what ? If you don't like the fact the owner is denying gay people into their establishment, then simply show your distaste by not giving the owner your custom.

... but no this is all about the poor misunderstood oft maltreated minority group labelled : GAY

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

I don't get who's freedom people think is more important here. The business owners or the public/customers/citizens. One person's freedom is another's oppression. There is a lot to say on this subject, but i need more caffiene first. For now, this is a single positive step from Disney, whatever their intentions. What a ridiculous law...ridiculous name and ridiculous reasoning. There are more important issues to work on in politics than letting people discriminate legally through religion, i believe we are all aware that people have used their religion to justify a lot of hate and bad behaviour. Fuck that and anyone who supports it.

 

[K12]

Here's my way of looking at it. There are acceptable and unacceptable ways for a corporation to throw around it's weight and influence. Saying "If you do this, we will leave" is an acceptable way. There is, and should be, no obligation for a private corporation to operate in an area they do not want to be in. It's not 'subverting the will of the people' to say "Look folks, you can do what you want, but we don't want to be somewhere that does this". So kudos to Disney for this. However, as another example from the same corporation, Disney's pressuring to change copyright laws to it's benefit was all about calling in favors from politicians whose campaigns they donated to. That was straight up influence peddling, and was a rather shitty thing for them to do.

It is in no way unethical for a corporation to have interests and put them forward. It's all in the manner in which it is done.

They are not simply 'leaving', they are threatening the livelihood of the majority of its staff, and the local support business that cater to the business and / or local community that is bolstered by the staff hired by the company.
This action can chain react and disrupt a lot of people who are not able to influence anything, except public opinion polls and thus it hits the politician... this is blatant threatening and abusing the local economic climates.

The law is incorrectly reported as a ANTI GAY law, its not, it is a law that COULD be used to deny GAY people or deny WHITE people, or people that like PINK MOHAWKS, or UNION JACKS shaved on their skulls.
The escapist 'journalist' has opted to make the report a click bait by focusing on what the law COULD do.
The law would give business owner the OPTION to deny entry based on what the OWNER decides.
How is this less freedom than insisting anyone should be allowed entry no matter what ? If you don't like the fact the owner is denying gay people into their establishment, then simply show your distaste by not giving the owner your custom.

... but no this is all about the poor misunderstood oft maltreated minority group labelled : GAY

It seems to me like this not an anti-gay law in much the same way that "The Grandfather Clause" wasn't an anti-black law. It would be pretty much impossible to get a law passed which discriminates against gays in a de jure way but you can make laws that allow you to discriminate against gays whilst making it seem innocuous. You probably couldn't deny any of the other people you mention because there's no legally recognised religion that has "anti-white" or "anti-tattoos" or "anti-mohawks" as part of that religions doctrine.

I can (grudgingly) accept that clergymen should be allowed to refuse to perform gay marriages for religious reasons because their beliefs are the whole point of their job but giving legal protection to discrimination by a "Christian coffee shop" is just dumb.

 

[rcs619]

I am always torn on stuff like this. On the one hand, I abhor the idea of any sort of discrimination and I certainly don't support banning anyone from anything. On the other hand, I think private businesses have the right to run themselves how they see fit and it is up to the market to determine that some practices end up hurting business. So you refuse gays, and you suffer backlash and go out of business.

Thing is though, especially in the southern states where the population is overwhelmingly christian and overwhelmingly socially-conservative, just "leaving it up to the markets" doesn't work. There's a decent chance you wind up getting more supporters *by* specifically 'making a stand against religious discrimination' by refusing to serve gays. Look at how many supporters and how much money Kim Davis made by being an idiot and refusing to do the job she was elected to perform.

Private businesses absolutely have the right to refuse service, if that customer is violating their rules, making a scene or otherwise ruining the business for other customers. They do not have the right to violate anti-discrimination laws though. If you want to be against gays at home or at church, you fully have the right to do so, but your religion should have zero relevance in the public space, and especially in a business transaction. Take their money, serve them, stop being a baby and making a scene.

The law is incorrectly reported as a ANTI GAY law, its not, it is a law that COULD be used to deny GAY people

It's Georgia. The population is overwhelmingly christian and/or socially conservative. These religious freedom laws were created as a direct result of other cases where businesses were forced to serve gay customers (that stupid cake, for example) and the general trend of giving gay people more protections under the law. In theory, it could be used for a lot of things, that's part of why they're such vague and terribly written laws. But in practice, they *were* written to allow discrimination against gays.

In a lot of states (especially southern states) there aren't even state-level anti-discrimination laws for gay people. In Arkansas, for example, it is 100% legal to fire someone purely for their sexual orientation, and attempts to create city-level anti-discrimination laws are often actually fought against by the state legislature (as just happened recently in North Carolina).

or deny WHITE people,

It's Georgia. It won't.

or people that like PINK MOHAWKS, or UNION JACKS shaved on their skulls.

That's... Hmm. Unless you had a specific religious objection to pink mohawks and union jacks, I don't think this law actually covers that. Then again, it's so freaking vague, who knows.

The escapist 'journalist' has opted to make the report a click bait by focusing on what the law COULD do.

They're focusing on what the law was *designed* to do. A state legislature can't come out and write a "Right to refuse gays" law (if they could, some of them would, believe me. It'd only help their re-election campaigns in a lot of cases), so they have to drape it in vague "religious freedom."

If you don't like the fact the owner is denying gay people into their establishment, then simply show your distaste by not giving the owner your custom.

As I stated to another poster, this doesn't necessarily work in states that are relatively homogeneous in terms of religion and social views. A business in certain parts of the south are just as likely to *gain* more customers by refusing gays than lose any.

... but no this is all about the poor misunderstood oft maltreated minority group labelled : GAY

It kind of is, since these laws were made in direct response to various other anti-discrimination laws passing around the country and/or court cases were businesses were fined or forced to serve gay customers. That's literally what this is about.

 

[JimB]

But hey! This time they did it for the "right" reasons, yes?

Yes. The outcome of an action is a relevant factor in measuring its rightness. To deny that is to base your argument on circular reasoning; i.e., "A company exercising influence in the democratic process is bad because companies exercising influence in the democratic process is bad."

I am always torn on stuff like this. On the one hand, I abhor the idea of any sort of discrimination and I certainly don't support banning anyone from anything. On the other hand, I think private businesses have the right to run themselves how they see fit and it is up to the market to determine that some practices end up hurting business.

Dunno what to tell you except that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution disagrees with you.

Why does it need to be a law?

Because the Constitution grants people protection from religious discrimination. Several states want to make an "unless it's a Christian doing it to LGBT people" exemption, which is a bunch of crap.

I really think it's a horrible idea for companies to have any sway over politics.

"Politics" is not some immaculate force that exists in a vacuum distinct from economics. The two fields are inextricably intertwined, because a government having enough money to provide for its people and a governed body having enough money to survive are obvious concerns of politics, since they contribute directly to the prosperity of the people. A state that refuses to take financial consequences into account is a state that has abdicated its duty to watch over the welfare of the people.

 

[JimB]

The law is incorrectly reported as an anti-gay law. It's not. It is a law that could be used to deny gay people or deny white people, or people that like pink mohawks, or Union Jacks shaved on their skulls.

Perhaps you are unaware with the context of these laws only coming into existence immediately following America's federal government declaring that gay people have a right to marry one another. In any event, I am curious as to which specific religions you think exist which specifically refuse service to white people, people with pink mohawks, and people with English flags shaved into their hair.

The law would give business owner the option to deny entry based on what the owner decides.

And it does so at the expense of violating a Federally protected right that has been enshrined in our highest legal document for a hundred and fifty years. It does so from a fundamental misunderstanding and gross, insupportable overreach of our First Amendment's freedom of religion, which laws like these attempt to use to grant a religious person not the right to worship as he sees fit, but to enforce his religious values onto other citizens. It is a law which has no business existing in this nation.

I don't get whose freedom people think is more important here: the business owners' or the public/customers'/citizens'.

Christians'. It is Christians they are trying to protect from the terrible burden of having to obey the law as regards the limits of their right to discriminate.

 

[Cryselle]

They are not simply 'leaving', they are threatening the livelihood of the majority of its staff, and the local support business that cater to the business and / or local community that is bolstered by the staff hired by the company. This action can chain react and disrupt a lot of people who are not able to influence anything, except public opinion polls and thus it hits the politician... this is blatant threatening and abusing the local economic climates.

Disney is in no way responsible for supporting the local businesses. You can not even begin to make a claim that, simply because they have filmed in an area in the past and it has been good for the people there, that they have an obligation to film in that area in the future. The reality is that large corporations like Disney go wherever they want. If Georgia wants them there, then they have to make it attractive to them to stay. If they make it unattractive to them, they leave. That's how it works.

As for whether the law in question targets gays specifically, I don't really care. I'm not exactly going to be all "Oh, you mean the law is really intended to discriminate against Muslims? That's okay then!". It's still a bad thing to do. But frankly, you will have a hard time convincing me that Georgia is attempting to enact a law with the intention of allowing people to discriminate against pink mohawks. We all know the context in which this law was proposed under, and the current state of rhetoric in that part of the US. The groups being targeted are pretty easy to figure out.

 

[Bobular]

This is just the market in action. If you say 'No gays aloud', then gays and people who support gays are going to take their business elsewhere, and sometimes those customers are billion dolor companies.

I say let the bill pass and watch as businesses that have 'No gays aloud' signs start also putting up 'Going out of business' signs whilst the ones with 'Everyone welcome' start getting a surge in customers.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I am always torn on stuff like this. On the one hand, I abhor the idea of any sort of discrimination and I certainly don't support banning anyone from anything. On the other hand, I think private businesses have the right to run themselves how they see fit and it is up to the market to determine that some practices end up hurting business.

Dunno what to tell you except that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution disagrees with you.

I think that is mostly protection for state actions and not private citizens based on what I read. I am not defending people who do this; I just don't think its the government's job to meddle with private business.

It is still cool that Disney is doing it to make a point though. I just don't think there should be a law one way or another.

 

[Strazdas]

I really think it's a horrible idea for companies to have any sway over politics.

"Politics" is not some immaculate force that exists in a vacuum distinct from economics. The two fields are inextricably intertwined, because a government having enough money to provide for its people and a governed body having enough money to survive are obvious concerns of politics, since they contribute directly to the prosperity of the people. A state that refuses to take financial consequences into account is a state that has abdicated its duty to watch over the welfare of the people.

Your right. its not. but it should be. Politics should be there to pass the laws in the interest of their electorate. This does include making rules and regulations to ensure economic prosperity of their electorate. it should not ignore its electorate because some company lobbies otherwise, however. In fact, companies that lobby against the interest of people should be the ones being forced to change.

Note: im not saying that we should down Disney for this (though i think we should for other things), im saying Disney or any other company should not act like mafia and go "oh what a nice economy you have would be a shame if something happened to it".

Because the Constitution grants people protection from religious discrimination. Several states want to make an "unless it's a Christian doing it to LGBT people" exemption, which is a bunch of crap.

Thats not what the proposed law does though. The proposed law would mean that christians would have as much right to exclude LGBT people as LGBT people would have a right to exclude christians. not that i think either should be allowed to and dont want to the to pass. but the law isnt some onesided hatemongering that you try to make it sound like.

 

[Dalisclock]

I'm just enjoying the irony inherent in the situation that people who believe businesses(especially large corporations) should be able to do whatever they want, free from "job killing" regulations, are somehow shocked that several large corporations availed themselves of this to do what they wanted to do.

The ultra-conservative Christians (AKA the Jesus Brigade) are eventually gonna realize that the NFL, Marvel and Disney don't particularly give a crap about their distaste for gays and gay marriage, but will happily go where the money is and (sometimes) look out for the interests of their employees. Then again, maybe not.

 

[Aggieknight]

My state is full of morons.

Thankfully Nathan Deal will almost certainly veto the bill based on some of the things he's said about it.

Agreed (my state too).

It shocks me the braindead comments that our government officials are making on this. Anyone who successfully completed 8th grade can read this law and see the problems with it.

This is another example of why we all need to pay closer attention to local elections. Most of these fools run uncontested while we all watch with breathless anticipation to see what bile Trump spews next.