> That's the key. I'm arguing that "adverse" doesn't mean "not receiving special unfair treatment."

“Adverse change” means a change in which the resulting condition is worse for the entity involved than the status quo ante.

The justice of either the resulting state or the status quo ante is not relevant to whether the change is adverse.

There is no dispute that:

(1) Florida intends Disney to be worse off because of this change, and

(2) Florida is motivated by Disney's exercise of its First Amendment rights in making this change.

This combination is impermissible regardless of any other context, and is absolutely retaliatory regardless of any other context.

I think we've both made very clear points, we just continue to disagree. Thanks for being civil.