I don't necessarily mind either colour blind casting, or casting that tries to be historically accurate with regard to people's appearance.
I do think the former works better in productions that aren't meant to be naturalistic, and so is often better in the theatre rather than on-screen. But there are non-naturalistic screen productions as well.
What does bother me more however is inconsistency, virtue signalling, historical revisionism, and I'd even say hypocrisy around this issue in the industry. What gets passed off as a colour blind choice in some cases clearly isn't - the've decided to do a race reversal, or a sex reversal, in the choice, but they do't own it. It's only ever done in one direction. You can see in some productions they've taken a role that they can vaguely justify as non-white but the fact is it's idiotic (the recent Secret Garden comes to mind.) And then you have things like Cleopatra - these days almost inevitably cast as a black actress, and that is presented as more historically accurate which is bollocks.
Of course it's now not considered appropriate for actors in theatre to use make-up to play a member of another race either, which narrows possibilities a lot, especially in community productions. Colour blind casting would be an answer maybe, but only if it really was colour blind - then you might find you have a black Juliet, or a white Othello with no attempt to make them look anything other than what they are. At least that would be consistent.