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

[Lightknight]

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.

Never said it wasn't relevant, just said it was odd because of how utterly obvious it was. Financially hurting people is the entire point behind this move and the reason why it can be considered a threat.

The point isn't that they're financially hurting people, the point is that they could be causing more damage than they're trying to prevent and not hurting the right people that are actual decision makers in the process. Disney's employees are likely already liberal (statistically) and so we aren't even looking at a major vote swing either.

The emphasis is on who they're hurting, not that they're hurting at all.

 

[AT God]

I personally wonder sometimes if it would be a good thing in the long term to have something like this actually occur. I get that it would be a horrible thing for many people living in Georgia, but I am curious if the same sort of events following Prohibition would occur with something like this. If this law passed, and film companies abandoned the state and ultimately cost the state lots of money, I am somewhat inclined to believe that that outcome would be ultimately better long term than the governor vetoing the bill. Prohibition, while obviously not much of a comparison based on scale, impact, etc, seemed to at least have permanently ended the major debates about banning alcohol. It happened, caused a lot of problems, and people mostly agreed the idea was bad and the idea hasn't really been debated again. If this discriminatory bill passed, and it cost the state money and caused major problems, I am inclined to think that would change minds more than if the governor vetoes it. Unless Georgians get literal feedback on why this idea is bad, it seems like the moment a more conservative governor takes over, the bill will return, probably with louder support who believes they were wronged. Still, totally glad I don't have to make any of these decisions because even if it prevented future bills like this, making a load of people worse off to teach other people a lesson is a massive ethical concern.

 

[Gengisgame]

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.

That's what I was thinking. Rainbow flag wavers see this and think they care while Disney actively exclude gays in the films them so they can continue to cater to the rest of the world.

 

[Gengisgame]

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.

This changing of what is actually happening is far more common.

Let me give you an example. Say someone make wedding cakes and you say they discriminate against gays, but they will make them a wedding cake, they just won't make them a gay wedding cake.

You know full well no one is being denied service based on who they are, just on what they want.

I would also point out that atheists have no business in this discussion, you can't really argue principles and beliefs when you don't actually believe these things exist.

 

[Worgen]

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

Its written that businesses can use religious reasons to deny marriage service. Its not about stopping people from going into wallmart, its only about things associated with marriage. Its clearly aimed at the gays since it only came about when gay marriage became the law of the land.

 

[Karadalis]

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?

The system is fundamentally broken and shall remain so until the death of human civilization or the heat death of the universe, whichever comes first. It's just a nice change of pace that it's broken in favor of the little guy for a change.

Eh... i can certainly sign that sentiment. Its just that the very same thing that disney pulls here being applauded by people is also the very same thing that disney uses to screw over everyone when they put themselves pretty much above the law, saying "my way or the highway" and thus forcing democratically elected representants of the people to do their bidding.

Especially for obvious PR reasons. The law proposed seems to be the freedom of choosing your customer on your personal beliefs/religion... and now i ask why shouldnt a business be allowed to do that? Its their financial loss if they turn away customers because reason XYZ, its just that they no longer can be sued for turning down customers they dont want to serve. I mean there will be other willing to pick up those who got turned away... thats what capitalism is suposedly all about right?

 

[Lightknight]

The point isn't that they're financially hurting people, the point is that they could be causing more damage than they're trying to prevent and not hurting the right people that are actual decision makers in the process. Disney's employees are likely already liberal (statistically) and so we aren't even looking at a major vote swing either.

Once again but with different words, damage is the point. That they may cause more damage than the damage caused by this particular law is the point, it wouldn't be much of a threat if losing Disney didn't cost people more than simply not passing the bill. As for hurting the right people, there is no precision financial strike to the Georgie legislature, there is just harming Georgia, after which people can take out their financial woes on the government that allowed it to happen. In case you weren't aware (and your desire to limit this exclusively to Disney employees says wonderful things about that) a major corporation pulling out of your state after serving as a financial boom to it hurts more than just the people who were directly employed by that corporation.

I did not say their goal wasn't to inflict damage. Only that the damage isn't being directed at the right people. As you stated, there is no good way to strike at the right people. But how does that then justify striking out at the wrong people?

 

[omega 616]

You know full well no one is being denied service based on who they are, just on what they want.

That's not true, they see them as an "abomination before god". They have a problem with everything gay, denying them a cake is just the only way they can negatively effect their lives in a kind of legal way.

I would go far as to say, some people like this probably still want gay people to be stoned to death.

Atheists should have the only say in this discussion, separation of church and state and all that. Religious people just want their own way, which doesn't want gay people anywhere or them to have any rights, which is why they are so side lined and their rights are only now just being acknowledged.

Reasonable atheists are OK with religious people doing whatever they want, until it comes to them stopping other people doing what they want to do. Why shouldn't gay people get married? 'cos your religion hates them? That's still no reason, they aren't effecting your life but religious people don't care if it effects them or not, they don't want it 'cos their book says gay people shouldn't exist.

 

[JimB]

I do get that the state of Georgia has a stigma of being anti-gay, non-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.

Okay, which group or groups of people do you imagine this bill is intended to protect Georgian rights to discriminate against?

I must wonder at why people would want to enter a establishment that does discriminate against them.

Lack of options in achieving services within price range; contrariness; an awareness that they still have Constitutional rights god damn it and Georgia doesn't get to take them away; probably some other reasons I can be bothered to think of because that last one seals it for me.

I consider myself open-minded, yet I 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.

Okay, but you're only you. You're not anyone else.

Disney leaving Georgia hurts more people in Georgia than the anti-gay bill would likely impact and significantly harder.

Disney did not bring the people of Georgia into the discussion. The Georgian government did that; and I will remind you the people of Georgia elected that government to represent them, so the whole "the people are blameless here" argument don't flush.

 

[Something Amyss]

Disney did not bring the people of Georgia into the discussion. The Georgian government did that; and I will remind you the people of Georgia elected that government to represent them, so the whole "the people are blameless here" argument don't flush.

It's sort of silly, when you break down the argument: Disney is wrong for putting an undue burden on a population that is putting an undue burden on another population.

Edited to be less simplistic.

 

[Vigormortis]

'No gays aloud'

So it's okay if they're quiet?[footnote]I'm sorry. I'm so, so sorry. I couldn't help myself. The door was wide open.[/footnote]

 

[Lightknight]

Disney leaving Georgia hurts more people in Georgia than the anti-gay bill would likely impact and significantly harder.

Disney did not bring the people of Georgia into the discussion. The Georgian government did that; and I will remind you the people of Georgia elected that government to represent them, so the whole "the people are blameless here" argument don't flush.

Cool, so you're saying that if you live in a nation that you are directly responsible for all the actions of the government even if you did not vote for or condone the government's actions yourself. That's an interesting philosophy that would certainly color historical atrocities in even more interesting lights... I assume we should start convicting other people based on guilt by association too?

You know, sometimes people vote for and elect people based on a wide variety of statements and beliefs rather than one singular policy. A politician being wrong in one area but right in many others can justify that one bad area. People who voted for some person likely did so without any knowledge of this bill or that it would come up or how the individual would vote. Even if they did, allowing people to refuse service based on personal conviction isn't an automatic moral evil as discussed previously. I wouldn't bat an eye at a person refusing to make a Swastika cake for a KKK member, for example. While gays sure as hell aren't a hate group, the reduction ad absurdum is well placed in my opinion.

The ethical practice of trying to control how people vote by inflicting pain on them is itself potentially morally ruinous but that's a high level philosophical idea rather than one with any obvious moral imperative. By harming a person for voting one way or another you are restricting the democratic nature of democracy which is pretty shady if you really think about it.

Imagine a scenario where Disney said that if their employees don't vote to reverse this or get enough members of the state to reverse it that they would all be getting fired. It's the ol' coercion side of the equation as opposed to bribery and could fall into some real grey areas including discrimination based on belief (you can't discriminate based on party affiliation, for example), which would be an interesting principle to sue on considering the unmoved mover of this situation.

 

[Callate]

I'm going to venture a guess that, say, shopkeepers refusing to serve women with uncovered hair wasn't what the Georgia legislature had in mind when they pushed this through.

At the end of the day, you still have to live among people who have different beliefs than you do; try not to be insufferable when the odds are stacked in your favor. Because they might not always be.

 

[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.

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.

That's true thinking about it. It would be just like when that clerk stopped issuing marriage licenses to gays (is that what sparked this bill?)

'No gays aloud'

So it's okay if they're quiet?[footnote]I'm sorry. I'm so, so sorry. I couldn't help myself. The door was wide open.[/footnote]

If they're not being loud about it how else would you know they are gay to ban them?

 

[Vigormortis]

If they're not being loud about it how else would you know they are gay to ban them?

Symbols tattooed on their hands?

No, that's terrible. That's too Nazi, even for Southern Evangelicals...

Name tags, perhaps?

Hell, I don't know. You've got me there. Fair point.

 

[JimB]

Disney leaving Georgia hurts more people in Georgia than the anti-gay bill would likely impact and significantly harder.

Disney did not bring the people of Georgia into the discussion. The Georgian government did that; and I will remind you the people of Georgia elected that government to represent them, so the whole "the people are blameless here" argument don't flush.

Cool, so you're saying that if you live in a nation that you are directly responsible for all the actions of the government even if you did not vote for or condone the government's actions yourself. That's an interesting philosophy that would certainly color historical atrocities in even more interesting lights... I assume we should start convicting other people based on guilt by association too?

You know, sometimes people vote for and elect people based on a wide variety of statements and beliefs rather than one singular policy. A politician being wrong in one area but right in many others can justify that one bad area. People who voted for some person likely did so without any knowledge of this bill or that it would come up or how the individual would vote. Even if they did, allowing people to refuse service based on personal conviction isn't an automatic moral evil as discussed previously. I wouldn't bat an eye at a person refusing to make a Swastika cake for a KKK member, for example. While gays sure as hell aren't a hate group, the reduction ad absurdum is well placed in my opinion.

The ethical practice of trying to control how people vote by inflicting pain on them is itself potentially morally ruinous but that's a high level philosophical idea rather than one with any obvious moral imperative. By harming a person for voting one way or another you are restricting the democratic nature of democracy which is pretty shady if you really think about it.

Imagine a scenario where Disney said that if their employees don't vote to reverse this or get enough members of the state to reverse it that they would all be getting fired. It's the ol' coercion side of the equation as opposed to bribery and could fall into some real grey areas including discrimination based on belief (you can't discriminate based on party affiliation, for example), which would be an interesting principle to sue on considering the unmoved mover of this situation.

Lightknight, here's a pro-tip: Anyone who begins a counterargument with "So you're saying" is almost certainly misrepresenting the position taken. Since you have seen fit to strawman me mercilessly in your post, I will not bother correcting your misapprehensions (and anyway, I feel my text is already explicit enough), but if you are actually interested in discussing my position rather than telling me what I think, please let me know.

 

[WindKnight]

Maybe Georgia will add hate crime laws to their book while they're at it. After that brutal crime last week in which two gay men were basically set on fire for holding hands it seems needed.

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.

There is no overarching anti-discrimination law that protects people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity at the state level so right now that would be irrelevant, not to mention that even if it were the case the law would still be in place and protecting discrimination until a lawsuit is heard in federal court.

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.

Yeah, no, you have to be from another dimension or have simply not been paying attention to believe this, given that the politicians themselves are saying that this is to allow continued discrimination againt LGBTQ people.

Also, a big aspect of this law is to ban Transgender people from their public restroom of choice, under the pretense of preventing sexual assaults (ignoring that being trans makes you far more likely to be the victim than the perpetrator)

 

[Lightknight]

Disney leaving Georgia hurts more people in Georgia than the anti-gay bill would likely impact and significantly harder.

Disney did not bring the people of Georgia into the discussion. The Georgian government did that; and I will remind you the people of Georgia elected that government to represent them, so the whole "the people are blameless here" argument don't flush.

Cool, so you're saying that if you live in a nation that you are directly responsible for all the actions of the government even if you did not vote for or condone the government's actions yourself. That's an interesting philosophy that would certainly color historical atrocities in even more interesting lights... I assume we should start convicting other people based on guilt by association too?

You know, sometimes people vote for and elect people based on a wide variety of statements and beliefs rather than one singular policy. A politician being wrong in one area but right in many others can justify that one bad area. People who voted for some person likely did so without any knowledge of this bill or that it would come up or how the individual would vote. Even if they did, allowing people to refuse service based on personal conviction isn't an automatic moral evil as discussed previously. I wouldn't bat an eye at a person refusing to make a Swastika cake for a KKK member, for example. While gays sure as hell aren't a hate group, the reduction ad absurdum is well placed in my opinion.

The ethical practice of trying to control how people vote by inflicting pain on them is itself potentially morally ruinous but that's a high level philosophical idea rather than one with any obvious moral imperative. By harming a person for voting one way or another you are restricting the democratic nature of democracy which is pretty shady if you really think about it.

Imagine a scenario where Disney said that if their employees don't vote to reverse this or get enough members of the state to reverse it that they would all be getting fired. It's the ol' coercion side of the equation as opposed to bribery and could fall into some real grey areas including discrimination based on belief (you can't discriminate based on party affiliation, for example), which would be an interesting principle to sue on considering the unmoved mover of this situation.

Lightknight, here's a pro-tip: Anyone who begins a counterargument with "So you're saying" is almost certainly misrepresenting the position taken. Since you have seen fit to strawman me mercilessly in your post, I will not bother correcting your misapprehensions (and anyway, I feel my text is already explicit enough), but if you are actually interested in discussing my position rather than telling me what I think, please let me know.

I directly referred to what I was doing as a reduction ad absurdum, thereby publicly acknowledging that I was twisting your comments into an extreme form to show the implications of it. It's not a straw man if you aren't stating that the absurd version of it is what the person was directly stating. Instead it serves to emphasize the flaw in your original statement rather than to actually assign citation to you. This is a common practice in discussion, the ball is in your court to correct the conclusion your statement brings. That all individuals in a democracy are responsible for all actions of elected officials, including ones they did not vote for and policies they were not aware of at the time voting or would not vote for themselves if given the choice. That's a precarious point to dangle off of if I may say so.

I am sorry if this debate mechanism frustrated you, that was not the intention.