“I do not believe you can be born gay, and I do not believe homosexuality is right, though the law of this land has made it legal doesn’t mean it’s right,” Omooba wrote in the post. “I do believe that everyone sins and falls into temptation but it’s by the asking of forgiveness, repentance and the grace of God that we overcome and live how God ordained us to, which is that a man should leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and they shall become one flesh.”
Hmm, being homophobic and trying to have a career in theater. Thats a bold move, lets see how it pays off.
After hearing testimony in 2021 that Omooba had previously told her agents that she refused to play gay roles and had not bothered to read the script for the musical version of The Color Purple before accepting the role, an employment tribunal dismissed the actor’s religious discrimination claim, The Telegraph reported.
How can you not even read the script, the book its based on, or even at the least watch the Hollywood movie for a part you’re trying to land in an acting performance?
“I have long forgiven all those who have sought to ruin my theatre career,” Omooba said in a statement following the ruling, “but the theatre world needs to be told, loud and clear, that canceling people for their Christian beliefs is illegal and wrong.”
Doesn’t look like it turned out well for her.
As someone of color, I wonder if she would agree with the KKK discriminating against her, as they also consider themselves “Christians” spreading hate against people over things they do not control.
Yeap, a lot of slavery in America was perpetuated and validated by religious beliefs. Plantation owners believed that black people were cursed by the mark of ham, and thus were entitled by an act of God to enslave people.
Also, the Bible literally says: “but I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” 1 Timothy 2:12
So according to Christian dogma, SHE wouldn’t be allowed to speak up against men, even if they are breaking some other rules, or try to teach the theatre world anything.
But it’s a fair bet saying she’s never opened a bible in her life, seeing she can’t be bothered to even check out what the story is about when applying for roles.
Edit I realised this might read quite neutral, so I’m adding a fuck monotheism here just to make my view on the matter clear
Eh, fuck all religions, not just monotheism. Religions are the worst, the amount of gods doesn’t matter much. They’re abusive and a detriment to society and progress.
“Religion” is a every wide term though.
Dogma makes religions bad, but not all religions have dogma. Also when does faith become religion?
I get your point and I don’t mind saying fuck all religions, but historically, polytheistic societies were more tolerant and usually pretty progressive. Much less (if any) dogma.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_monotheism#Violence_in_monotheism
The intolerance of narrow monotheism is written in letters of blood across the history of man from the time when first the tribes of Israel burst into the land of Canaan. The worshippers of the one jealous God are egged on to aggressive wars against people of alien [beliefs and cultures]. They invoke divine sanction for the cruelties inflicted on the conquered. The spirit of old Israel is inherited by Christianity and Islam, and it might not be unreasonable to suggest that it would have been better for Western civilization if Greece had moulded it on this question rather than Palestine.
get your point and I don’t mind saying fuck all religions, but historically, polytheistic societies were more tolerant and usually pretty progressive. Much less (if any) dogma.
Idk, I think that’s a pretty hard claim to make. One that’s mainly dependent on the fact that the majority of written history happened after the advent of monotheism, especially in the west.
If we examine the body of evidence of polytheistic cultures outside western influence, things get a bit more complicated. Especially considering that terms like progressive and tolerant are subjective concepts entrenched in the eurocentric cross-examination of cultures.
In ancient Mesopotamia, people were more able to accept the concept of dualism and polytheism, however they were also much more likely to participate in the destruction of entire cultures to capture the idol of a rival god. How do you weigh that with the modern understanding of concepts like progressiveness or tolerance?
You’re literally making my point for me.
In ancient Mesopotamia, people were more able to accept the concept of dualism and polytheism, however they were also much more likely to participate in the destruction of entire cultures to capture the idol of a rival god
“RIVAL” god.
a person or thing competing with another for the same objective or for superiority in the same field of activity.
That’s the proto-version of dogmatic monotheism. That’s the origin of the first commandment. That’s THE reason monotheism is so unaccepting and violent.
I’m not going to write a several page essay detailing why this is so. Do you know why Jesus was accepted as a deity to the Roman and Greek pantheons at the time, instead of being seen as a rival god? How the same thing happened later in the North of Europe as well with norse polytheism?
Polytheism by its very nature has more explanatory power, as not every explanation is “God works in mysterious ways” as one god is considered omnipotent and infallible, whereasin polytheism gods are often more humane, fickle, and fallible, despite being very powerful.
terms like progressive and tolerant are subjective concepts entrenched in the eurocentric cross-examination of cultures.
Not really. Do you kill everything different from you? Then you’re not too tolerant. “Progressive” is also not too subjective. Before the Christianisation of the Nordics, for instance, “Viking” rape laws were far more progressive than their so-called “civilized” European counterparts. On the continent, women were considered property and so rape was a property crime – there was no “victim,” but the father or husband, whose property had been damaged.
That’s not really subjective of a take, is it? To think that an attitude of “women are people” is more progressive than “women are things”?
Or do you consider that a subjective thing…?
Whenever there is a belief in something supernatural, it will be abused, it will end badly, because we’re already talking about people believing things without any proof. Sooner or later, a leader will pop up and it’s it’s rather easy to make these people do your bidding by inventing new wonders or dogma or whatever works for said leader(s)
People need to grow up. Yeah, maybe there is a mighty system operator that manages our simulation, or maybe I’m a Boltzmann brain or whatever. Thinking about it, these two ideas are more plausible than any religion out there, yet we don’t have the great Boltzmann church.
Science is finding out reality, maybe we should focus more on that
Fuck blind faith.
Agreed. I have faith in science, I have faith in people, I have faith in real things.
Religions are the worst
Religious philosophy is fine. Not everything needs to be crammed into the framework of hard sciences. And the social aspects of religious organizing are no more good or bad than the individuals who take part in it.
You can just as easily find religiously motivated abolitionists as slavers. You can just as easily find religiously motivated homeless shelters as pedophile priests. The spiritualist language used to describe our social bonds is no less legitimate than some Evo-Devo prattle about brain chemicals, at least from the perspective of setting useful policy.
They’re abusive and a detriment to society and progress.
You can just as easily find abusive and detrimental habits in business economics and the hard sciences. Rationalization of a perverse or destructive behavior often follows the decision to embark on it. And you don’t need religious beliefs to rationalize bad behaviors.
So just keep the philosophy and ignore any supernatural stories.
You’ll never sell any comic books with that attitude
Yeah, no. How many wars were fought over atheism? None. How many over religions? Too many to count.
The average Catholic is a fine person, I’m sure, but the Catholic church is a horror show. How many people have suffered because of that organization? More than I could count. How many wars has it started? More than I’d like to know.
Want to try a different religion? Any religion? Any cult? Scientology, maybe? No? How about Jim Jones temple of what was it called again?
Individual spiritualism then? In on itself harmless, maybe, but it’s still pure nonsense in the level of believing in unicorns and Santa Claus, and it still will end in either groups starting to form, that makes cults that either die out or become organised religion. And in its entire trajectory, it WILL cause suffering and abuse.
Yes, abuse is possible in any organization, but no organization will allow and tolerate abuse as religious organizations do. Give us your money, old grandpa with cancer, god will cure your cancer and return you your money double, I swear! Climate change isn’t real, god would not allow it! All our thousands, millions of followers should just continue to pollute the hell out of this world because God will fix it, people! Hurricanes are caused by gay wickedness and women won’t get pregnant from rape, god will stop that unless they like it.
I see no positive point in any religion or spirituality that could not be made without it.
So yes, fuck all religions, they’re a detriment to the growth of humanity.
But what about the charities then? Charities don’t require religion, you can do one perfectly fine without the other, and that ignores that charities only exist due to governments not fixing issues.
How many wars were fought over atheism? None.
The entire Cold War was a protracted struggle between hard right Christian fascists and Communist Rationalists.
Look up the history of the John Birch Society. The entire movement is based on the Chinese Maoist treatment of Western Evangelicals.
Yeap, a lot of slavery in America was perpetuated and validated by religious beliefs
Goes even beyond that. Christianity - specifically, the New Testament verses that extolled the virtue of earthly toil on behalf of a secular lord in exchange for heavenly reward - was leveraged to convince the slaves themselves that their lot in life was justified. And for a great long period of time, it was successful. Even after the Confederacy’s back was broken, mobilizing a population that had been wiped into submission for centuries was legitimately difficult. The Freedman’s Bureau had a herculean effort put at its feet - to engage, re-educate, and empower millions of newly emancipated black men and women after a lifetime of debasement and degradation.
When you get into why Reconstruction failed, a big part of it was like looking at a spouse in an abusive relationship trying to get out from under a hyper-domineering partner and scaling that sociological problem up to the scale of whole cities and states.
When you get into why Reconstruction failed, a big part of it was like looking at a spouse in an abusive relationship trying to get out from under a hyper-domineering partner and scaling that sociological problem up to the scale of whole cities and states.
I mean that, but also Andrew Johnson was a horrible person and even a worse president
deleted by creator
Did you mean to say ham?
Yep. God cursed Noah’s son Ham and his descendent to eternal slavery. All for the devastating crime of Ham witnessing Noah sleep in the nude.
Cure of Ham
It’s simple. They’re the wrong kind of Christian, and she’s the right kind.
They’re not real Christians.
No True Christian would fail to hate the exact same groups of people I hate.
Not just theater but musical theater the absolute stronghold of the LGBTQIA+… Yeah let’s just talk openly about how I believe the vast majority of my coworkers and peers (who probably have backgrounds of religious trauma) are morally defunct and how their ability to feel loved and supported shouldn’t be considered protected by society!
I want to grab her by the shoulders and say : For fuck sake honey. No one in your field wanting to touch you with a 9 ft pole isn’t their fault. Having someone openly homophobic in a role where getting the gold star of casting has been for the past several years meant actually choosing someone who has actual experience in a similar identity to what they are potraying… It would be suicide for a production. People are going to look to a queer character to project themselves in those situations. Knowing you’re just a bigot doing it for self agrandizement, accolades and cash is going to cause fucking boycotts from the very target audience of the show!
Spilling your theocratic dirty laundry on twatter because you can’t hold it in can be a “career limiting move” and that’s just normal in a pluralistic society.
Concrete proof that these people simply don’t live in reality.
She thinks this is oppression.
Concrete proof that these people simply don’t live in reality.
Religion should have been your first clue.
Oh they live in reality. When reality bites them they feel it. For the most part I respect belief. These people legitimately believe that there is a power which will inevitably maliciously destroy us and that to save other people they must be discouraged in any earthly way possible. They believe that to be a noble thing because the foundation comes from a rock solid belief in the divine and honestly there’s not much you can do to shake that belief so what they are doing makes sense from that perspective.
The issue with that being around people with that belief who act on it as though it’s their job to dissuade people from what they perceive as that particular danger is miserable. Like okay, you believe that we’re gunna burn do so quietly because LGBTQIA folk aren’t going to change because even if you believe in God with those tenants it’s really hard to believe he is actually benevolent. Most of the LGBTQIA Christians who believe that God hates the only terms under which they can be happy end up killing themselves. That’s part of why conversion therapy is considered a human rights issue.
For the most part I respect belief.
The ones based in bullshit (like religions), I don’t.
Alright, so what? What good does treating them petulantly do? If you cannot treat them in a way where they feel understood and cared for they don’t change. If you treat someone poorly or like you are superior they are more likely to double down on their belief and spit in your face. Unless your aim is to bash their faces in and straight up use force you have to see the human in them to get started reversing the programing because a lot of religions preach that unbelievers are evil and the first step in any questioning of the whole is to show that no… You aren’t evil. You are moral and kind actually.
What’s the end goal of disrespect? To be rude to them for fun?
If you treat someone poorly or like you are superior they are more likely to double down on their belief and spit in your face.
They’re prone to do that anyway.
you have to see the human in them to get started reversing the programing
Why do you say “I have to”, like is my obligation and my work to deprogram religious nuts?
You don’t have to. Only if you want to try and stop them from being religious nuts that’s where you start.
It’s not your job to interact with them so don’t. If they are actively causing you pain where you are you have a right to defend yourself to get them to stop but like any violence there is a line where you cross from self defence to just taking out your anger and trauma on someone else to make yourself feel better. People who do that make the job harder for those of us who want to stop religious trauma from perpetuating.
Respecting religious belief is part of the healing process of religious trauma. It doesn’t mean subscribing to belief in religion. It means seeing the actual human beings inside the system that hurt you.
I’m not sure that I agree that a queer character can only be played by a queer actor. That is called acting, the entire idea is to be someone you’re not. If wr put that rule, then you can also say that straight characters cannot be played by queer or gay actors, not something we want, I’d say.
I think its more a push toward making space for people who have marginalized identites to act. For a long time being openly queer was career suicide. So now that those stories are finally being told, people also want actors writers and producers of those identities involved in the process.
I think its less that straight actors cant play queer characters and more so that there are already plenty of roles for them. Maybe in a more equal future that pressure wont be there but right now it is.
I also think it depends on the role. A side character that happens to be gay? Yeah a straight actor can definetly play that. A lead role in a comming of age tale about discovering your gender identity? Probably best played by someone who has lived experience.
Imo it’s the same idea as having black people play black characters instead of white people with black makeup. If everyone was treated as equal then it wouldn’t be an issue. However, that’s not reality. People are treated differently based on gender, sex, race, age and so forth. Wanting queer characters to be played by queer actors is a way of making sure they have a space to demonstrate their skill, talent, and potentially make a living off it. Same thing with black people playing black characters, or women playing female characters.
There’s another element, however, in which good acting can’t fully replace personal experience. A queer actor playing a queer character will likely be able to identify with said character much better than a straight actor could, and as such, they would be able to harness their personal experiences and channel them through the character they’re playing.
While my latter point doesn’t refute your point about straight characters being played by queer actors, the former hopefully explains why it isn’t universally applied. I do believe though, that in a just and equal world, things like sex, race, gender and so forth shouldn’t be (dis)qualifiers for any given character, it’s just that we don’t live in that kind of world.
I’m not sure that I agree that a queer character can only be played by a queer actor.
Maybe not, but having it played by a queer-hating religious zealot won’t do.
True
To be fair I never said “can only be played by” just that the gold standard has become preferred casting of actors who can apply their personal experiences to the role be it people who come from a specific place or culture (like a queer culture) , have a specific racial background or a disability those roles particularly are earmarked with a growing cultural preference for people because there’s some wider cultural issues of stereotyping, typecasting or framing out people who can tell you is something the playwright put in is full of shit. More people are becoming wise to media literacy and can spot things off with an uninformed take on a performance.
There is a silver and bronze standard that are still acceptable. Sometimes you cast someone outside the gold standard for a bunch of reasons. Availability, overwhelming directorial notions that it was an audition above and beyond… but in leftist spaces particularly - like audio drama podcasts as an example the gold standard of preferred applicants is explicitly listed on audition sides.
gold standard has become
<citation required>
No, the entire thing about acting is that people can play people other than themselves. If you can’t play outside your own experiences, you’re not the “gold standard”, as you randomly claim, you’re a bad actor.
Well you can cast your creative projects as you like.
You do seem to be missing the point and leaving most of my point untouched however. It isn’t that a person without the experience can’t play the part. It’s that when you are not accostomed to seeing people like yourself lifted up it is far more thrilling to see it happen. It’s not about the actor. It’s about the audience.
That’s what I have trouble understanding - not even reading the script. Apparently she counted on her agents to “filter” things for her. Sounds highly unprofessional.
Definitely failed at basic adulting: “read carefully before signing”.
I’m not supporting this dumb bigot at all but isn’t that kind of an agent’s job?
In the case of a good, reputable agent who makes you their top priority, it can be. In other cases, if the agent sees a role for a black woman in her 30s(?) who can sing, that’s good enough. Unusual, specific demands/requirements could slip through the cracks. They pass the script along, expecting her to at least skim the damn thing, and leave the final decision up to her.
Hmm, being homophobic and trying to have a career in theater. Thats a bold move, lets see how it pays off.
I laughed so loudly as this comment, my kids came to check in on me.
I’ve gotten too used to people intentionally misspelling a certain person’s name. ‘Omooba’ threw me for a loop.
“I have long forgiven all those who have sought to ruin my theatre career,”
It would be beneficial for her to realise long and deep self-reflection is a virtue.
Thats a bold move, lets see how it pays off.
The Daily Caller is always hiring.
How can you not even read the script, the book its based on, or even at the least watch the Hollywood movie for a part you’re trying to land in an acting performance?
More curious how she got hired on those terms. It seems like a simple line reading might have clued everyone involved in on what this story was about.
So you cant cancel people for their christian believe. But apparently you can cancel people for well everything else? Woman is mad.
TBF, the supreme Court has mostly agreed with her in multiple cases.
Why is it always so hard to just leave people alone? How empty is her life that she actually went to court over this, spent money, time, and resources on hate.
BECAUSE SHES BEING VICTIMIZED. /s
Because everyone is more important than anyone else & they all not only deserve to be heard, but if you disagree, you’re the asshole… it’s internal justification for ignorance
Not everyone deserves to be heard. That’s ridiculous. Being heard means someone is listening. We don’t have sufficient time or ears for everyone to be heard.
I agree that everyone deserves the chance to speak. But not everyone deserves a platform to be heard.
If someone wants to be a bigot, they can go shout about it in their backyard. But don’t put the burden of hearing it on the rest of us. Ain’t nobody got time for that.
I think you two are on the same page, the words they emphasized point to a ‘this is from their point of view, look how selfish they are’ kinda message.
I shoulda added the /s I suppose
Yeah, I wasn’t sure so I worded it to possibly be agreeing :-)
I noticed this with the universe: somehow resources and time find their way into the pockets of those who use it cause harm on somebody else. But for us folks who wanna just put food on the table or pay debt we are always at the verge of drowning.
If you examine the tenets of Christianity and the Bible, spreading homophobic beliefs can be seen as a duty:
Firstly, let’s explore why it a Christian responsibility to share God’s message. Leviticus 19:16-18 says: “Do not go about spreading slander among your people. Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am the LORD.” This passage encourages us to be truthful in our communication with others, as well as to avoid causing harm to those around us. By sharing the Biblical perspective on various issues, including sexual morality, they fulfill this commandment.
Additionally, Matthew 28:19-20 emphasizes the importance of spreading the Gospel in all parts of the world: “Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of time.” This verse illustrates the mandate from Jesus himself to preach his gospel and instruct new converts in His ways.
Now, when we turn to the subject of homosexuality, there are multiple verses in both Old and New Testaments that categorize homosexual acts as sinful and an abomination. For instance, Leviticus 18:22 declares: “You must not lie down with a man as with a woman; that is detestable.” The concept of homosexual behavior being considered an abomination or detestable act appears several times throughout the Bible (e.g., Leviticus 20:13). In Romans 1:24-27, Paul speaks about how certain people exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones, which resulted in God’s wrath.
In summary, it is crucial for Christians to spread the Word of God, because the Bible serves as the guide for living a virtuous life. Homosexuality stands out as one of the practices contrary to Biblical teachings, described as an abomination. Therefore, by sharing their beliefs, these Christian individuals aren’t merely promoting homophobia but rather, they are adhering to the principles set forth by God in the Bible.
You may not agree, but it’s at least consistent with their faith.
I don’t mean to be that guy, but I’m not gonna read all that. You replied to me assuming I don’t know anything about Christianity, which isn’t true. My comment was kind of rhetorical.
I grew up in a household that was Christian, my partners household was catholic, and I’ve read pretty good chunks of the Bible.
I appreciate the sentiment, but your time is really better spent elsewhere.
I don’t mean to be that guy, but I’m not gonna read all that.
Guess the Bible would be too long for you as well. Have a nice day.
I mean, don’t you think it’s a little presumptuous on your part to give someone what amounts to a lecture on the tenants of christianity in a lemmy comment?
How do you know what it is if you didn’t read it?
We’re clearly not getting anywhere with this. I’m gonna go do literally anything else. This is exactly why I don’t browse atheist communities. There’s always a know-it-all that’s willing to dole out all of their clearly very much more correct than yours opinions.
I’m here for discussion – feel free to analyze what I wrote and provide specific feedback. I am able to change my mind.
You really shouldn’t be starring in The Color Purple if you don’t understand that discrimination is bad.
Discrimination against ME is bad.
Discrimination against YOU GODLESS HEATHENS is good aktuly.
Besides, something something mumble mumble black liberation had its roots in religious movements something something mumble mumble don’t ask what white slavery had its roots in though.
She is absolutely clueless and didn’t even read the script before taking the part.
People really need to learn that “freedom of expression” is not the same as free from consequences. Otherwise, defamation wouldn’t be a crime, for instance.
This case has nothing to do with freedom of speech. She was suing a private theater on the grounds of religious discrimination which is a law, not a right. She was denied because she wasn’t discriminated against based on her religion, but rather was fired because her specific expression impacted her job. She would have been fired no matter what religion she was a part of which is why it wasn’t religious discrimination
Thanks for the explanation. The title makes it sound like she was going to jail for anti lgbt comments.
People need to stop being told they have free speech. They do not.
You absolutely do, you just don’t have freedom from consequences. Go stand in front of the White House and shout about how being gay is a sin – this is not a crime. However, don’t be surprised if you gather nasty looks or people arguing with you.
We seemingly don’t, and that is bad thing. People should be allowed to say whatever they like, or democracy doesn’t work. What does it matter if you can vote for whoever you want, if you can’t even vocalise an opinion that the majority disagree with? I disagree fundamentally with this woman’s opinion, but that doesn’t mean she should be banned from saying it - if we disagree with it, we should disincentivise others from believing it by arguing against it, not hiding the opinion.
She wasn’t banned from saying it, she was fired for refusing to do the job she was hired to do.
If you hire a butcher and they refuse to work on / around / in the vicinity of pork because of their religious beliefs, you are not firing them because of their religion. You’re firing them because they’re not a fit for the job they were hired for.
Demanding the script change because she has a problem with LGBT+ and being let go isn’t being “cancelled”, it’s demanding the entire production bend to your personal beliefs and being told “no”.
You’re right, she shouldn’t have signed up for that job. I wasn’t talking about her case in particular, but rather the larger phenomenon of people being banned for having opposing beliefs, particularly in online places where you can talk (forums, social media, etc)
“Opposing beliefs” is often just coded language for extremely offensive, factually inaccurate, demonstrably dangerous, and often indefensible speech. Social media companies aren’t obligated to keep posts about Jewish space lasers, Holocaust denialism, and pro-fascist ideologies on their servers.
Social media advertisers don’t want their product advertisements appearing adjacent to batshit, nonsensical, conspiratorial, alt-right bullshit.
Having a Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, or Instagram account isn’t a right and having it taken away doesn’t make you a victim. Nobody owes anyone else a platform to spew toxicity to the masses.
I’m using the royal “you” btw. I’m not saying you, specifically, are a Trump supporting crybaby.
Private entities are not the government.
If the government owned a version of Twitter, sure. Until then, good luck lol.
For the same reason I can tell you to get the fuck off my property. Doesn’t mean you can murder, but it’s mine. You don’t get to plant flaming crosses on it unless it’s upside down with a statue of Baphoment. Because then you’d have my permission.
There’s a difference between a small web forum with 3 users though, and something like Twitter, which is a gatekeeper and thus must be held to higher standards.
Legally? No, there isn’t.
ISPs aren’t even nationalized. Let alone private websites.
Also there should literally be no such term as higher standards. Standards should be equal.
But you are missing the point here. She wasn’t told she couldn’t comment or make those statements. She made those statements when her role was a gay character for a musical that she never read the script for, any of the literature or looked at any other productions of. She also had stated that she didn’t want any gay roles. She would have completely ruined the production as well as caused a massive backlash against the theater when her views were discovered by the target audience. This isn’t a freedom of speech situation, she wanted to say whatever she wanted without consequences and that doesn’t exist unless you are extremely wealthy.
Right, but a court ruling she can’t make those comments seems like violating that whole first amendment thing.
I’d get losing her job, public outcry, the social consequences but it’s strange to me to see legal consequences in the form of a court ruling. Thought that was a pretty clear line.
Did you read the article at all? Because the court did no such thing and that wasn’t even the question at hand. The only thing she lost was her attempt to sue the theater for firing her because she made homophobic comments after accepting a role to play a gay character for a script she didn’t read.
The headline and the snippets I read failed to mention that, I mostly got caught up in her fucking biography apparently.
Then yes, the court ruling is in the right.
Another Christian religious nut. Get fucked.
on this episode of “My Sincerely Held Belief Takes Precedence Over Everything” we once again attempt to claim that any consequences for my anti-social behavior is a direct attack on myself and my religion.
But my religion says I have to hate people and tell them they’re going to Hell.
“All those who have sought to end my career.” So entitled.
She refused to play a gay role, but when she was found out she’d signed up for a gay role, she didn’t quit, just go all persecuted when she was fired from the gay role that she refused?
My religious dogma says it’s good to be a bigot against shitty bigots who target marginalized and minority groups for their hate. It also guarantees salvation at death or triple your money back.
Being homophobic in THEATER, of all places?!?
I’m just surprised to know there is a straight actor in theatre. It’s like finding a Shiny Pokémon or something, surely.
deleted by creator
They will probably believe they’re being discriminated against while being the one who is discriminating against others. Typical flawed world view.
Her comment at the end of the article confirms that she’s in deep with the persecution fetish
“but the theatre world needs to be told, loud and clear, that canceling people for their Christian beliefs is illegal and wrong.”
Odd, I don’t remember christ demanding the ability to say hateful things to people. But I bailed on the religion over a decade ago, so who knows what new things they’ve found that Jesus said now.
lol this bitch didn’t just get fired from a job for saying homophobic shit…SHE TOOK A ROLE PLAYING A GAY CHARACTER!
She didn’t read the script. Found out later she played a gay character. Why didn’t she just quit?
Hey she still has the right. Just no job lol.
“Defending her right to make anti-LGBTQ+ comments” is a strange way to frame this by a pro-LGBTQ source. No one here is saying she doesn’t have a right to say these things, they’re saying she doesn’t have a right to stay employed at this job after saying these things and refusing to work with her employer to manage public perception
She always had the right to express her ideas… she just didn’t have the right to be free from the consequences of doing so. I also enjoy the tension of “I follow everything the Bible says” / “I’m not homophobic”
she’s not defending her rights, she’s challenging the rights of studios to choose who they work with.
Before appealing, she should take into account whether she can afford to pay more legal costs if (when) she loses again.
I’m sure that will be the lawyer’s first point in the “should we appeal” conversation.
The daily wire and other outlets will eat this shit up and can promote her GoFundMe’s unfortunately
