Disney & Marvel threaten filming boycott in Georgia

[FaxModem1]

Newsarama

DISNEY & MARVEL Threaten Filming Boycott In GEORGIA Over Proposed 'Anti-Gay' Law
by George Marston, Newsarama ContributorDate: 23 March 2016 Time: 01:27 PM ET 5167 230Reddit72Submit1
Marvel logo inside Mickey Mouse silhouette
CREDIT: Marvel / Disney
View full size image
New Captain America: Civil War StillsPin It CREDIT: Disney/Marvel Studios
View full size image
Marvel has filmed several movies in Georgia, including Ant-Man and Captain America: Civil War, and the currently filming Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, but now if a so-called "anti-gay" bill is signed into law the studio -- and parent company Disney -- will boycott filming in the state. The proposed law in question, House Bill 757, would allow some businesses to discriminate based on a patron's sexuality.

“Disney and Marvel are inclusive companies, and although we have had great experiences filming in Georgia, we will plan to take our business elsewhere should any legislation allowing discriminatory practices be signed into state law,” said a Disney representative in a statement.

Disney did not disclose if the proposed boycott would extend to other facets of their company that do business in Georgia, such as retail outlets, record labels, and merchandise sales.

Georgia has become a widely-used destination for filming movies and television shows thanks to the relatively low cost of resources and tax breaks offered as incentives for filming in the state. England's famous Pinewood Studios recently built a new location outside Atlanta, which has become a primary filming location for many of Marvel's movies.

Two independent studies by the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce and Atlanta Convention and Visitors Beaureau estimated (via The Atlanta Journal-Constitution) that a previous iteration of the bill could cost the Georgia economy $450 million dollars annually in direct spending and 4000 jobs should boycotts such as Disney and Marvel's take place.

Considering that Georgia has become a sort of second Hollywood for a lot of television shows and movies, I'm curious if other studios will follow suit.

[Grumman]

What a bunch of hypocrites. Punishing people just for living in the same state as people who did something you don't like is even worse than what they're protesting against.

[Gandalf]

What a bunch of hypocrites. Punishing people just for living in the same state as people who did something you don't like is even worse than what they're protesting against.

How so?

The people elected a government who have enacted a policy that may affect Disney's operations in their area. Why should any business want to be in a place where their gay employees can be discriminated against when they try to go to eat?

[Thanas]

You can't divorce the action of a government from their people in a democracy. The people of Georgia elected the discriminating politicians, thus the people of Georgia can suffer the loss of income when gay people or inclusive companies decide to go elsewhere. Don't like it? Don't vote for bigots then.

[bilateralrope]

What a bunch of hypocrites. Punishing people just for living in the same state as people who did something you don't like is even worse than what they're protesting against.

So how would you prefer Disney try to change the minds of the politicians ?

[Grumman]

What a bunch of hypocrites. Punishing people just for living in the same state as people who did something you don't like is even worse than what they're protesting against.

How so?

The people elected a government who have enacted a policy that may affect Disney's operations in their area. Why should any business want to be in a place where their gay employees can be discriminated against when they try to go to eat?

What if they aren't discriminated against? We're not talking about Jim Crow laws here - there is zero obligation for any Georgian business to actually take "advantage" of their newfound right to turn away paying customers for no good reason. The people who will be hurt most by Disney writing off the entire state are local gay-friendly businesses: they are the ones whose patronage Disney is denying in protest.

[Gandalf]

What if they aren't discriminated against? We're not talking about Jim Crow laws here - there is zero obligation for any Georgian business to actually take "advantage" of their newfound right to turn away paying customers for no good reason. The people who will be hurt most by Disney writing off the entire state are local gay-friendly businesses: they are the ones whose patronage Disney is denying in protest.

If you're Disney, why take that risk when they could relocate somewherr that doesn't feel that refusing service to gay people is apparently a right worth protecting?

[Ralin]

You can't divorce the action of a government from their people in a democracy. The people of Georgia elected the discriminating politicians, thus the people of Georgia can suffer the loss of income when gay people or inclusive companies decide to go elsewhere. Don't like it? Don't vote for bigots then.

And fuck any gay Georgians who voted against the bigots and who are adversely affected by the loss of business.

Or do you have any reason to think this will disproportionately impact the bigots over their victims? Serious question here.

[bilateralrope]

What a bunch of hypocrites. Punishing people just for living in the same state as people who did something you don't like is even worse than what they're protesting against.

How so?

The people elected a government who have enacted a policy that may affect Disney's operations in their area. Why should any business want to be in a place where their gay employees can be discriminated against when they try to go to eat?

What if they aren't discriminated against? We're not talking about Jim Crow laws here - there is zero obligation for any Georgian business to actually take "advantage" of their newfound right to turn away paying customers for no good reason. The people who will be hurt most by Disney writing off the entire state are local gay-friendly businesses: they are the ones whose patronage Disney is denying in protest.

I will repeat my question. How would you prefer Disney try to change the minds of the politicians ?

Because it looks like it's the best option Disney have at their disposal to me.

[Purple]

I will repeat my question. How would you prefer Disney try to change the minds of the politicians ?

Because it looks like it's the best option Disney have at their disposal to me.

Here is a question for you. Do you think it is a good idea to allow companies to use the leverage they have to influence politics in such a heavy handed way? Ignore the issue for a moment and just look at this situation from a neutral perspective. What is happening now is that effectively speaking Disney has decided to impose its own version of economic sanctions on a territory that has elected individuals Disney dislikes.

I personally think it sets a very bad precedent. And the fact that it's a just issue for once does not change that. And if you as a nation accept this as something that's fine next time it might not be such a nice issue. It might for example be Wallmart pulling out over minimum wage laws.

[Broomstick]

This came up when my home state passed similar anti-gay legislation (which, by the way, I was firmly against in case there were any doubts).

Suddenly, when a shit load of businesses threatened to pull out of the state over the law, a lot of conservatives started valuing money over morals. The has been effectively neutered, but the state still took a bit of an economic hit for it.

Money talks.

[Grumman]

I will repeat my question. How would you prefer Disney try to change the minds of the politicians ?

I don't see the need - "How do I give Disney more influence over our government?" is not a question I think needs answering. I just think it's stupid to use total economic sanctions to protest giving businesses the option to cut off their nose to spite their face. Cutting all economic ties with a state and everyone living there is your nuclear option. It's what you use when Japan invades China. I'm not at all fond of how some on the left have decided it should be their first resort and not their last.

[TheFeniX]

Disney and other companies are there due to economic reasons anyways: certain red states are notorious in giving large business huge tax breaks to operate there, for just one example. Should they, as a company, continue to value the bottom dollar more than ethical obligations? This is a gray area to me due to past incidents of "ethical obligations" actually meaning "we hate gays and want to let everyone know we hate gays." But they use the "religious exemption" bullshit.

Disney is deciding to not do business somewhere which.... I don't know how you make that illegal. Operating sweat-shops overseas? Yea. But domestically? Wal-Mart can't stop a union from forming, that's illegal. They can just close a store down of spite. Shitty, but how do you go about making a law that says "you can't close a business down without... asking us if it's ok?"

[Alferd Packer]

I will repeat my question. How would you prefer Disney try to change the minds of the politicians ?

I don't see the need - "How do I give Disney more influence over our government?" is not a question I think needs answering. I just think it's stupid to use total economic sanctions to protest giving businesses the option to cut off their nose to spite their face. Cutting all economic ties with a state and everyone living there is your nuclear option. It's what you use when Japan invades China. I'm not at all fond of how some on the left have decided it should be their first resort and not their last.

From Disney's perspective, this may be a situation where the nuclear option is warranted. Maybe they have internal market research that shows if they don't leave when the law is passed, they'll become the targets of some sort of boycott and lose out on way more revenue than they would by closing up shop in Georgia and relocating. By getting out ahead of this, they position themselves to have the best possible result in either outcome--that is, if the bill is signed into law or not.

[Grumman]

From Disney's perspective, this may be a situation where the nuclear option is warranted. Maybe they have internal market research that shows if they don't leave when the law is passed, they'll become the targets of some sort of boycott and lose out on way more revenue than they would by closing up shop in Georgia and relocating. By getting out ahead of this, they position themselves to have the best possible result in either outcome--that is, if the bill is signed into law or not.

I quite believe that they might become the targets of one of these indiscriminate boycotts, but that is not an excuse for performing one of these indiscriminate boycotts of their own. If Disney boycotts local businesses for doing business in Georgia, they are guilty of exactly the same idiocy as the people who would boycott Disney for doing business in Georgia.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I'm a raging asshole, so I'll use the conservative fallback on refusing to do business with people: Freedom of association

Even better, Disney can claim the leadership has a profound religious objection to discriminatory actions, as well as pointing out that by subjecting their employees to the laws in Georgia could easily be seen as condoning those laws and put them at risk.

What it all comes back to, though, is that Disney is free to associate (or not associate) at their whim. Don't conservatives and libertarians love the idea of freedom of association? Why can't Disney enjoy that right?

[bilateralrope]

I will repeat my question. How would you prefer Disney try to change the minds of the politicians ?

I don't see the need - "How do I give Disney more influence over our government?" is not a question I think needs answering. I just think it's stupid to use total economic sanctions to protest giving businesses the option to cut off their nose to spite their face. Cutting all economic ties with a state and everyone living there is your nuclear option.

Yes, it's a threat to use the nuclear option. But I see the nuclear option as reasonable when there are no lesser options that would work. I don't see any lesser options for Disney beyond complaining and having those complaints ignored, leaving the bill to become law.

A law likely to harm Disney employees because Disney is extremely likely to have homosexual employees and I can't see this bill getting as far as it has without businesses who want to make use of it.

So is there a better option for Disney to take here ?
Or are you saying that Disney should just let this bill become law ?

[Ralin]

I don't think anyone has argued Disney and Marvel should be legally prevented from boycotting Georgia?

I totally understand why Disney and Marvel's leadership would want to make a call like this. But hurting Georgia economically means hurting the people who live in Georgia, and that includes the people the boycott is theoretically supposed to be supporting. I don't have numbers on it, but I'd be concerned that having two major gay friendly companies boycott the state is going to cost gay and transgender people in Georgia that many potential jobs from a friendly employer. It's not as simple as "Punish the hicks."

[biostem]

It's a no-win scenario - if they didn't do something like this, then the law got passed, people would urge consumers to boycott Disney for, effectively, being in favor of such anti-gay laws.

[Joun_Lord]

A law likely to harm Disney employees because Disney is extremely likely to have homosexual employees and I can't see this bill getting as far as it has without businesses who want to make use of it.

Pretty much my thought on the matter.

Even leaving aside the moral argument, Disney and Marvel boycotting the state is good just for the safety and comfort of their employees. They are making them there Hooplawood movies from that liberal atheist communist gay mexican militant bastion California so it stands to reason there are going to be gay employees working on the movies. Gay employees who are going to be legally discriminated against, blocked from going into businesses ran by small minded probably closeted idiots and singled out for harassment.

And this will effect all employees really. I may be a simple country lawyer but I posit that its pretty hard to visually tell when someone is gay and as far as I know gaydars don't work too well. So smile minded idiots who do honestly think California is a "liberal atheist communist gay mexican militant bastion" would probably be douches to any Disney employee.

Having to have their people work in such conditions where they are legally ostracized and publicly ridiculed is probably not something Disney wants to do for any number of reasons including the mental health of their employees, the publicity of it, possibly gay celebs getting snubbed while trying to grab a sandwich at a shop and the problems that will cause, possible physical danger by homophobic retards so opposed to gay people they want to pass Segregation-ish laws, and probably more.

It does suck for the native Georgians who have to deal with such bullshit and don't have the ability to fuck off out of there much like how gun owners in Failifornia having their rights restricted by politicians selling illegal firearms on the side can't fuck off out of there but perhaps Disney taking a stand and effecting the pocket books of the homophobic......oh sorry dedicated religious politicians will help them in the long run.

I wonder if some other state is going to try to swoop in and snatch the movie business out from under Georgia. It'd be cool if WV tried it but one, I doubt my state is much friendlier towards LGBT rights and two, with all the hills I doubt we'd be good for shooting movies.

[MKSheppard]

I'm actually somewhat interested in the fallout of this -- how long term and legally binding were the contracts that Disney signed with Georgia authorities for productions in state?

[Gaidin]

So the thread is new. But the Governor has already been fighting the battle the movie corporations(and there's more than Disney apparently) and has been doing so for about a month.

Dude is literally quoting scripture at the Legislature

Gov. Nathan Deal has issued his strongest words yet about HB 757, the anti-gay so-called “religious freedom” bill that has caused an uproar over the last few weeks. The Republican governor, who was the recipient of a delivery of 75,000 emails and postcards in opposition to the bill on Wednesday, said he would reject any bill that “allows discrimination in our state in order to protect people of faith” and called on his fellow Republicans to “recognize that the world is changing around us.”

The comments came on Thursday, three days after warning lawmakers away from legislation that could be “perceived as discrimination.” Deal today said he wouldn’t be disappointed if any version of HB 757 failed to pass before the legislative session ends on March 24, adding that “It’s not on my agenda item. It’s not one of those issues that I have been pushing.”

More from the AJC:

“I know that there are a lot of Georgians who feel like this is a necessary step for us to take. I would hope that in the process of these last few days, we can keep in mind the concerns of the faith-based community, which I believe can be protected without setting up the situation where we could be accused of allowing or encouraging discrimination.”

A biblical argument against discrimination from the governor, a Southern Baptist:

“What the New Testament teaches us is that Jesus reached out to those who were considered the outcasts, the ones that did not conform to the religious societies’ view of the world … We do not have a belief in my way of looking at religion that says we have to discriminate against anybody. If you were to apply those standards to the teaching of Jesus, I don’t think they fit.”

“What that says is we have a belief in forgiveness and that we do not have to discriminate unduly against anyone on the basis of our own religious beliefs. We are not jeopardized, in my opinion, by those who believe differently from us. We are not, in my opinion, put in jeopardy by virtue of those who might hold different beliefs are who may not even agree with what our supreme court said the law of the land is on the issue of same-sex marriage. I do not feel threatened by the fact that people who might choose same-sex marriages pursue that route.”

And Deal said he’s still against marriage equality, but added:

“But that does not mean that those who hold to that view should feel like they are threatened by those who have a different point of view.

“I hope that we can all just take a deep breath, recognize that the world is changing around us, and recognize that it is important that we protect fundamental religious beliefs,” he said. “But we don’t have to discriminate against other people in order to do that. And that’s the compromise that I’m looking for.”

House Speaker David Ralston’s spokesman issued a statement to the AJC after hearing of Deal’s comments:

“Speaker Ralston appreciates and shares Governor Deal’s sincere commitment to protecting religious liberties while ensuring that Georgia continues to welcome everyone with genuine southern hospitality. Productive conversations continue with the Governor’s staff as well as other members of House leadership regarding HB 757 and the Speaker is confident that we can find a way to move forward together.”

Deal is in his second and final term in office and will be 77 years old by the time he leaves, so with no likely plans to continue in politics after that, it makes sense that he can and would come out strongly against the bill like this because a) he doesn’t have a future election to worry about and b) he doesn’t want an anti-gay bill that wreaked havoc on the state’s economy to be his legacy. And this must be the week for Republican governors to buck the GOP trend against LGBT rights following South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard’s veto of a controversial anti-transgender “bathroom bill” on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, LGBT and GOP leaders are on high alert as they wait to see what Ralston and the House do next with HB 757. March 24 is three weeks from today so expect some more fireworks from one or both sides before it’s all over.

As Broomstick said...money talks. 1.7 Billion dollars? That speaks LOUD.

[Flagg]

Money talks. So if Deal signs it, or the legislature somehow overrides a veto the fundy dipshits will make up for it by taking it out of state funded welfare programs. Because that's what a gaping, infected, necrotic, maggot-riddled, swollen, shitty pus dripping, and overall reeking of death asshole Jesus would do.

[Thanas]

You can't divorce the action of a government from their people in a democracy. The people of Georgia elected the discriminating politicians, thus the people of Georgia can suffer the loss of income when gay people or inclusive companies decide to go elsewhere. Don't like it? Don't vote for bigots then.

And fuck any gay Georgians who voted against the bigots and who are adversely affected by the loss of business.

True, those are getting screwed over. But then again, I cannot see how a business can protest such a law besides threatening to pull out.

[Grumman]

And fuck any gay Georgians who voted against the bigots and who are adversely affected by the loss of business.

True, those are getting screwed over. But then again, I cannot see how a business can protest such a law besides threatening to pull out.

Seriously? You can't see how America's second largest media conglomerate can protest a law? Here's one for free: make the next Disney Princess bisexual or a lesbian. You're welcome, Disney.