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

[JimB]

I think that is mostly protection for state actions and not private citizens based on what I read.

The relevant text read:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So-called religious freedom laws create and enforce laws abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens. They fail Constitutional muster on their faces.

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.

The people have no interest in denying gay people their Constitutional rights. It's just meanness being done to score points with fundamentalists until such laws are inevitably stricken by the Supreme Court.

That's 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.

Only if you can find an LGBT-exclusive religion that says Christians must not be allowed to have cakes at their weddings, which you won't because it doesn't exist. The potential use of a law is relevant, but less relevant than its effective use and the context in which it occurs. It is created to protest the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage, and will fail for the same reason that gay marriage is legal.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

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.

There's no "allowing" necessary. People have to understand that politics is not the goverment dictating things and everyone else just accpeting it.
As you said, everyone has a right to vioce their opinion, we can't just silence those big companies because we might not like what they've to say.

The other side of the coin though is, that politicans shouldn't be so afraid of the companies and push important things anyway. Often times these threats a vapid bluffs, because the costs to transport a whole production from A->B isn't pocket change.

It's a constant push and pull.

 

[Strazdas]

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.

The people have no interest in denying gay people their Constitutional rights. It's just meanness being done to score points with fundamentalists until such laws are inevitably stricken by the Supreme Court.

That's 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.

Only if you can find an LGBT-exclusive religion that says Christians must not be allowed to have cakes at their weddings, which you won't because it doesn't exist. The potential use of a law is relevant, but less relevant than its effective use and the context in which it occurs. It is created to protest the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage, and will fail for the same reason that gay marriage is legal.

I agree it is so in this case, but i was talking about how things should be in general there. Edit for clarification: I mean i think in this case its the government officials that are not reprenseting their electorate. They should by not making such discrimination allowing laws. But that does not make companies threatening government a good thing. To use an overused phrase: There should be good tactics, not just good targets.

Its very easy to create a government accepted religion in US. John Oliver created one that explicitly state its just for profiting as a joke. The way the law is written however is that you dont even have to have a religion. like another person stated in this thread you could ban all people wearing orange caps if you wanted to. The point being that the law itself is not anti-gay, the people most likely to use it probably will be though.

 

[MCerberus]

Georgia's treading on nails here. That have a massive A&E program that has a good amount of gets. Disney was mentioned. Georgia has a pretty decently-sized animation studio that you'll recognize from Archer. It's in gaming through some studios including Tripwire Interactive. Additionally, Atlanta is attempting to diversify its economic prospects and this, to put it lightly, does not help.

It would be like both St. Louis and Milwaukee going dry to combat the bad morals drinking encourages.
Hell, the Mike Brown protests hurt St. Louis county's financial (you don't think about it, but the county's a HUGE financial hub for the region) and Washington U's tech startup program, and their locations had absolutely no jurisdiction over Ferguson.

 

[ASnogarD]

I may of been mistaken, the image in the original post and some of the text implied that Disney has some permanent and substantial assets in the state, and as such is threatening to pull those assets out (I am thinking as if it was a factory, and it is pulling out and abandoning the factory).
If its merely threatening to not film there again, then its not as bad as I thought.

I do get that the state of Georgia has a stigma of being anti gay, none supportive of gays etc etc yet to simply report this law as a anti gay is still biased and not very professional, click bait would be a term I would be tempted to use.

The law proposed is vague yet designed to allow a option, most likely said option would be to ban gay people but it isn't specific... it could be used to ban others, even under silly contrived uses.

Finally I must wonder at why people would want to enter a establishment that does discriminate against them, if the law passes and a anti gay sign appears on the local pub, would a gay person actually want to go there ?

I consider myself open minded yet would not walk into a bar openly described as a 'gay bar' as I would be uncomfortable there, and potentially solicited, by gays of course... yet openly 'srt8 bars' are illegal in a manner, merely saying this is a straight bar is implying that gays are not welcome and thus causes issues.
I personally would appreciate open signs that say... Gay Bar or Straight Bar, so I don't accidentally walk into the wrong bar for me.
Now I would condemn to the highest degree if a gay hating person wondered into a openly gay bar and started anti gay rhetoric, that is merely going out of your way to cause trouble... not that shouting anti gay rhetoric in a straight bar is acceptable, just gay people should expect some reactions to... unwanted solicitation in a straight bar, just like I would not be able to get offended if I was in a gay bar and got solicited.

Sheesh, discussing gay issues, like other controversial subjects is a headache... nearly any comment not openly supportive is lambasted as anti gay.

 

[Lightknight]

Disney leaving Georgia hurts more people in Georgia than the anti-gay bill would likely impact and significantly harder. People who may have had absolutely nothing to do with bill and ironically it could even harm more gay people by way of lost wages/employment/business.

It's nice for companies to take a stand on issues they believe in, but it's important to note that sometimes the stand you're taking is hurting the wrong people.

Somebody deciding not to make you a wedding cake because they hate your identity more than they like money sucks and is stupid. But that shouldn't mean you lose your job too because those people exist in your state. Disney is making a bad situation worse if they actually go through with it. If they change the law then they took a gamble with real people's livelihood and won. But that gamble is significant when the people aren't in control of the legislation in the way we'd like to imagine they are.

 

[happyninja42]

Disney leaving Georgia hurts more people in Georgia than the anti-gay bill would likely impact and significantly harder. People who may have had absolutely nothing to do with bill and ironically it could even harm more gay people by way of lost wages/employment/business.

It's nice for companies to take a stand on issues they believe in, but it's important to note that sometimes the stand you're taking is hurting the wrong people.

Likely true to an extent, however not taking a stand at all, pretty much guarantees there won't be any pressure to actually change/prevent the laws. Not to mention exposure. I didn't know Georgia was trying to pass a law like this, until this article popped up. Because Disney leaving an entire state is big news, whereas another article about some back asswards state passing shit bigotry laws, is getting lost in the noise these days.

Besides, if the lost wages/employment/business of the Disney stuff, is because the gay people you mention happen to work for Disney in that state...well they could probably get work elsewhere with the company "Hey guys, so yeah, I used to work for you in Georgia, and you kind of took my job away, got an opening for me somewhere else?" I'd be willing to bet Disney would be accommodating in that regard. Sure many of them might be unable/unwilling to move, but it's still an option.

 

[Lightknight]

Likely true to an extent, however not taking a stand at all, pretty much guarantees there won't be any pressure to actually change/prevent the laws. Not to mention exposure. I didn't know Georgia was trying to pass a law like this, until this article popped up. Because Disney leaving an entire state is big news, whereas another article about some back asswards state passing shit bigotry laws, is getting lost in the noise these days.

Besides, if the lost wages/employment/business of the Disney stuff, is because the gay people you mention happen to work for Disney in that state...well they could probably get work elsewhere with the company "Hey guys, so yeah, I used to work for you in Georgia, and you kind of took my job away, got an opening for me somewhere else?" I'd be willing to bet Disney would be accommodating in that regard. Sure many of them might be unable/unwilling to move, but it's still an option.

This isn't just a burden on gay people. I was just pointing out that this could hurt more gay individuals in worse ways than this bill might (believe it or not, but even bigots typically prefer money over not money. A thousand dollar cake to a gay wedding is not less money than a thousand dollar cake to a straight wedding and most people abide by that logic). It's a burden on anyone working for Disney in Georgia and all the businesses that are having people come into their shops during production. Some gay, some not. Some may want the bill to pass and others may not want or have anything to do with it. They're all being hurt the same and in all likelihood more people would be hurt by this and the damage is likely more significant than any damage being caused by that bill.

I do wonder how broad the bill is though. If someone walks into your restaurant are you able to turn them away due to orientation or is this specific to wedding services? I could see a thin religious defense for the latter but not for the former and if the former is what the bill allows then yeah, that would warrant extreme countermeasures. One of which would hopefully be Disney providing their excellent legal services to escalate the case quickly.

I'm also not entirely we should be able to force companies to serve anyone and everyone even though it avoids undue burdens on the discriminated (aka most vulnerable) individuals. Sure, we dislike hate and prejudice and we would like everyone to get along. But I'm not sure business owners and employees don't have a natural human right to work when they want to and not work when they don't want to even if their reasons are personal beliefs that are contrary to everything we believe in. It's just the fear of an undue burden on individuals and especially a fear of the return of a "whites only" scenario prevents us from even considering the ethics of telling a person that even if they have personal ethical/religious objections to be part of something that they MUST do it anyways or go out of business. Maybe it wouldn't make a difference in a large city where people can just go one block over to get the same or better service, but in a small town they may be getting refused by the only vender in town. So our response is perhaps to crush some people's rights more than we probably really should be doing in an effort to force them to act according to our own code of ethics and sensibilities.

I guess the way I think about this is whether or not I'd want to be forced to make something for a neo-Nazi or some kind of KKK leader. I'd like to believe that I should be able to refuse service based on personal moral grounds when confronted with that kind of evil but for me to be able to defend that I also have to accept that others also have their own set of morals and standards that may be drastically different from my own. It's easy for me to dismiss others concerns as saying they have no moral basis but in reality my sense of right and wrong is subjective. So it's actually a much more complicated subject when you think of it this way and some people may moreso believe that people have a right to act according to their own conscious rather than they believe that gays should be discriminated against. Would you respect someone less who believes discrimination against gays is wrong but also believes that people have a natural right to discriminate within their own realm of influence as part of freedom of speech?

 

[Deathfish15]

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.

I agree about your last statement, but the overall issue needs put into perspective.

A business is not 100% private if they even get the smallest of small tax breaks, credits, or any other provisions from the Local, State, or Federal governments. By getting those provisions -which is more often the case than not, just to convince the business to keep operating in that area- then they give up a lot of choice making decisions about what they can and cannot do. Discriminating based on "religion" is not one of those things they can do when taking a government based helping hand with their business.

So a business would have to be paying its taxes 100%, its utilities 100%, and taking no additional government provisions in order to even be slightly able to discriminate freely. But many states already have anti-discrimination laws so that they cannot.

P.S. Isn't it odd that many churches can get huge federal tax cuts, yet are able to discriminate like all the time? Yikes!

 

[FirstNameLastName]

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.

As nice as that sounds, sadly, I'm not too sure it would go down like that. I doubt any large companies would be stupid enough to do that, since they would likely lose lots of customers, but small local shops may actually profit from it. Most of the people who would boycott them wouldn't be likely to have ever heard of them anyway, so inevitable controversy and attention would attract people to rally around them (yes, there are people who would do this), which would likely increase profits above the regular amount.

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

Which films are you're referring too? And are said anti-gay laws depicted as a good thing within these films? If not, then it really doesn't matter. There's a big difference between depicting something and endorsing it.

 

[Albino Boo]

Which films are you're referring too? And are said anti-gay laws depicted as a good thing within these films? If not, then it really doesn't matter. There's a big difference between depicting something and endorsing it.

In 78 countries in the world being gay is criminal offence. Disney allows its films and merchandise to be sold in all of them. Including Iran where being gay is punishable by death. So Disney cares so much about Gay rights they take profits from countries that execute people for being gay. If Disney really cared then perhaps not making money from countries that criminalise homosexualty should be a higher proity than saying other groups have right to hold a differing opinion.

 

[Lightknight]

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.

I agree about your last statement, but the overall issue needs put into perspective.

A business is not 100% private if they even get the smallest of small tax breaks, credits, or any other provisions from the Local, State, or Federal governments. By getting those provisions -which is more often the case than not, just to convince the business to keep operating in that area- then they give up a lot of choice making decisions about what they can and cannot do. Discriminating based on "religion" is not one of those things they can do when taking a government based helping hand with their business.

So a business would have to be paying its taxes 100%, its utilities 100%, and taking no additional government provisions in order to even be slightly able to discriminate freely. But many states already have anti-discrimination laws so that they cannot.

P.S. Isn't it odd that many churches can get huge federal tax cuts, yet are able to discriminate like all the time? Yikes!

Did you know that the KKK is a non-profit organization and as such benefits widely from the tax benefits that provides?

The "tax cut" logic isn't sound and doesn't apply here. You don't pay taxes or have credits because you act or don't act on your beliefs. Businesses under a certain number of employees are also already exempt from certain discrimination laws such as discriminatory hiring practices. It's only when you hit a certain number that you can be dinged on a lot of things. It's only the practice of service discrimination that businesses of all sizes can get punished.

Having tax credits or business write offs also doesn't make you public. Hell, even being a public corporation doesn't mean the company doesn't have core business ideologies or practices that reflect their owners.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

Well, this sort of freedom is usually only brought up when it comes to discrimination in the first place. Well, corporations doing shitty things, I should say. Still, most of the time it comes to something like racial or sexuality-based discrimination.

It's absolutely zero surprise to see that it?s suddenly bad when a company does it to defend gays.

I think that is mostly protection for state actions and not private citizens based on what I read.

It's equal protection for citizens under the law and has been ruled as such.

Only if you can find an LGBT-exclusive religion that says Christians must not be allowed to have cakes at their weddings, which you won't because it doesn't exist. The potential use of a law is relevant, but less relevant than its effective use and the context in which it occurs. It is created to protest the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage, and will fail for the same reason that gay marriage is legal.

Yup. Homosexuality is not a religion and therefore it'd be wrong.

Unless we make homosexuality a religion.

Anyone want to found an LGBT church with me?

Finally I must wonder at why people would want to enter a establishment that does discriminate against them, if the law passes and a anti gay sign appears on the local pub, would a gay person actually want to go there ?

Part of the issue is we have historical precedent for entire towns effectively having "whites only" policies. If you're a gay or a Muslim or someone else the PTB hate, they can lock you out of all services. You could just leave, assuming you have the money to do so.

Unfortunately, LGBT individuals can be born to anyone, anywhere. It's not like you choose to be born in a small town in Georgia.

I consider myself open minded yet would not walk into a bar openly described as a 'gay bar' as I would be uncomfortable there, and potentially solicited, by gays of course... yet openly 'srt8 bars' are illegal in a manner, merely saying this is a straight bar is implying that gays are not welcome and thus causes issues.

Except you're equivocating a bar that caters to a specific clientelle but does not discriminate (many of my straight friends go to gay bars) with ones that explicitly do discriminate. If a "straight bar," which is 99% of them, says "no gays allowed," they are doing something the average gay bar isn't. You may feel uncomfortable being hit on, but considering gays go to "straight bars" all the time and get hit on by members of the opposite sex, that's not an equal concern. That's you choosing not to go to a gay bar because you don't like the idea of being hit on. You are not being told you can't go. That's not the equivalent here.

Sheesh, discussing gay issues, like other controversial subjects is a headache... nearly any comment not openly supportive is lambasted as anti gay.

Keep in mind, you are talking about a bill that actively allows discrimination, and your response is "sheesh," and a surprise that this is considered anti-gay. This is the definition of anti-gay: refusing people serve ice--outright refusing it--based on being a specific sexuality.

 

[Lightknight]

[

Finally I must wonder at why people would want to enter a establishment that does discriminate against them, if the law passes and a anti gay sign appears on the local pub, would a gay person actually want to go there ?

Part of the issue is we have historical precedent for entire towns effectively having "whites only" policies. If you're a gay or a Muslim or someone else the PTB hate, they can lock you out of all services. You could just leave, assuming you have the money to do so.

It's important to add that in some rural towns there is not necessarily a second or third establishment providing the services the person is looking for and even if there was a second there's not a guarantee that they would have more enlightened views than the first.

The primary goal of anti-discrimination laws is making sure that everyone has access to the free market in similar and meaningful ways. In a large city, allowing businesses to discriminate isn't going to be that big of a deal. But in rural America the problem can get real very fast when you have to drive 100+ miles to get to a city that will cut your hair or provide other normal services.

My hope is that the bill doesn't apply to regular services and only applies to services that can be seen as ceremonial. You can justify, somewhat, not participating in a gay wedding if you believe those aren't appropriate weddings. But you can't justify not serving a gay person a burger.

The reason I don't think we will ever see a return to the whites only status is because of the motivation of business owners back in the day. If an establishment allowed minorities to eat there, then the white customers wouldn't eat there. I think the majority of people nowadays don't 'give no shits' about that kind of thing so serving a gay person wouldn't carry financial repercussions with it in the vast majority of scenarios. I also think most people just want to get paid.

 

[Naldan]

It only frightens me, if I wouldn't already know better, that one company could weald such a big leverage. But this is the norm.


Thank god that in this case, I'd do the same as Disney. I'm a fan of Mitsubishi's old ways, at least regarding their founder's written small excerpt about foreign business, but the line is here.

Reminds me on "Kauft nicht bei Juden!". Tell me that there won't be religious any organization that would say "Don't sell to XYZ!" and a lot following suit, legimitized through this law.

This sets a horrible precedent...

[Snipped the rest]

No way. I really have to control my sarcasm here.

This has been the case since... The Roman Empire is the furthest I know about.

Read about the gouvernment of Venice. One of the first "democratic" of its time. Sometimes. Won't spoil it, though.

You should try working at Verizon, Comcast, etc. Disney. The copyright act.

Oh man... Welcome to the 20th century. You've got just 116+ years to go.

 

[omega 616]

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.

It seems to be an argument that is cropping up more and more, "it's discrimination to force me to serve people I want to discriminate against".

There are many a youtube video that do excellent jobs of saying why this line of thinking is dodgy, which were made around the same time the gay wedding cake thing.

 

[Lightknight]

Disney leaving Georgia hurts more people in Georgia than the anti-gay bill would likely impact and significantly harder. People who may have had absolutely nothing to do with bill and ironically it could even harm more gay people by way of lost wages/employment/business.

It's nice for companies to take a stand on issues they believe in, but it's important to note that sometimes the stand you're taking is hurting the wrong people.

Somebody deciding not to make you a wedding cake because they hate your identity more than they like money sucks and is stupid. But that shouldn't mean you lose your job too because those people exist in your state. Disney is making a bad situation worse if they actually go through with it. If they change the law then they took a gamble with real people's livelihood and won. But that gamble is significant when the people aren't in control of the legislation in the way we'd like to imagine they are.

Pointing out that them leaving the state will have economic consequences seems like an odd thing to do, mostly due to how obvious it is. In fact, financially hurting people is kind of the point of this move and it's the threat of such that is meant to convince the state government not to go through with it. And it's not Disney, nor AMC, nor any other company's job to serve as a financial boon to the populace of a state where they don't want to operate. So, if the bill passes and companies decide to take their business to a less shitty state, people can be wildly entitled and blame Disney for not going out of its way to help them or they can blame their state government for being shit.

Pointing out that Disney protesting in this way is hurting a significant number of people who have nothing to do with this bill and likely are at odds with this bill is odd to you? Sounds entirely relevant.

Disney would be doing good all around by aiming the brunt of their amazing legal teams at any scenario where a person is discriminated by the bill if it gets passed than taking jobs away from people who statistically are far more likely to be gay themselves than the general population.

Understand that Disney leaving doesn't really hurt the people making these decisions. Their pay checks are going to keep coming without pause. The only way this would make a difference would be if there were a sudden outcry in Georgia caused by this information getting media attention but the actual exit from the region only hurts regular joes on the street and not congress men and women.

 

[Lightknight]

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.

It seems to be an argument that is cropping up more and more, "it's discrimination to force me to serve people I want to discriminate against".

There are many a youtube video that do excellent jobs of saying why this line of thinking is dodgy, which were made around the same time the gay wedding cake thing.

The logic isn't dodgy because morality is relative. Forcing a person to work at all is already incredibly questionable and to force them to work when they have a conscientious objection is even more questionable.

This is just difficult to discuss because I'd say we are more opposed to allowing a potential "whites only" scenario to crop back up than we are to infringing on business owners' and workers' rights. It can quite easily be argued that this should fall under free speech as an act of expression of one's beliefs. But again, we are tempered here by our mutual hate of discriminatory practices so it's hard to acknowledge that they have a natural right to not have to perform a job while also preventing Jim Crow era practices.

Rock *we are here* Hard place.