Christian actress is suing theatre and agents because she's homophobic

[Beseigedbykillersquirrels]

www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-leicestershire-55923843?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=16124732828219&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s

Has anyone been following this in the news? From what I can make out, this homophobic actress was dismissed from a role she would have refused to play had she read the script before accepting because the character she was signed to play was gay. She has previously shared homophobic posts on social media, didn't tell her agents she would refuse to play gay roles and she's now suing for hurt feelings and damage to reputation. AIBU to think she's damaged her own bloody reputation?!

It’s just one kiss in the film.

However that’s sort of beside the point as the musical is based on the book, not the film.

The part is played by Whoopi Goldberg in the film.

@LAgeDeRaisin

In her defense she does work in theatre, an industry renowned for it's heterosexuality.

Ha! Good one!!

I have a personal connection to this case.

She was fired not just for the Facebook post stating that homosexuality is wrong, but for allegedly behaving in a way during rehearsals that made the rest of the cast uncomfortable. She was given every opportunity to save her job and refused - literally, all she had to do was make some weak apology and say something like, "I apologise if anyone was offended, Jesus loves everyone." Instead she doubled down on the homophobic nonsense and bullying.

After she was fired, Curve still agreed to pay her the entire salary she would have earned from the production. So she didn't even lose any money from being fired. She decided she wanted to try to monetise her firing and sued Curve for a sum that is 32 times the salary she would have earned from playing the role (the salary they were willing to still pay her for not playing the role). Which is just outrageous.

She's now dragged this nonsense about having no idea the character had a same-sex storyline, and has basically been caught lying and making contradictory statements. For example she claimed to have no idea about the plot of the musical yet she'd acted in a production of the Colour Purple once before so clearly did know the plot. She claimed her character was off-stage during the lesbian kiss scene so she literally had no idea the show she performed in had a lesbian kiss. Quite apart from the fact this is not how theatre works (she would have been present during the initial table read, and certainly present during rehearsals) other people who worked on that production confirmed that she was in fact onstage during the lesbian kiss. At which point she changed her story and said "yes I was onstage but I wasn't looking in that direction" - like you'd just not notice what was happening on the same stage.

Musical Theatre isn’t the wisest of industries to go into if you’re a homophobe. And Cecile definitely isn’t the part for you! Hard to see what else Curve could have done - no way could they have continued with her cast in the role when she refused to apologise etc

Ah, I love a good homophobe, they’re usually a bit dim.

I’m sure she would get on well with Israel Folau.

I think it's unreasonable of the theatre to fire her for something she posted long before they signed the contract with her. And I can see how being fired, would cause reputational damage for her.

While I totally disagree with what she said, I think a world in which you can be fired for things you said in the past, even when your opinion is, was or has become unacceptable, is a dangerous one for us all.

@rosetylersbiggun - that's interesting, thank you for sharing. An article I read the say before said something along the lines of, she had the choice to be dismissed or resign, and she chose to be dismissed. She wasn't going to play the role either way because she's a nasty homophobe but believes that is her right because of her protected religious freedom. She was offered her original wage but didn't engage and instead brought legal action because she had her feelings hurt because it was pointed out that being a bigot isn't ok. It's interesting that she doubled down on this and made it very clear that it wasn't a misunderstanding or error of judgement in posting those social media statements about homophobia being wrong.

I understood current thinking to be very much that heterosexual actors should NOT play gay/trans/non-binary roles?

Granted, this is not her argument. Maybe she'd have better luck if she reframed her case.

She's an idiot. There is no place for homophobia in Christianity and the sooner there is marriage equality within the church the better. As a Christian this sort of "justification" for intolerance makes me so mad.

@BoomBoomsCousin - but it wasn't just a daft selfie on Facebook. She publically declared that nobody is born gay and that homophobia is a sin. She wanted the world to know that she is homophobic. She still holds those views. It wasn't a daft spat on social media when she was a teenager. She chooses to hold these views, chooses to still hold them and chooses to let them interfere with her work. She needs to face the consequences of her bigotry.
If she wasn't sacked she would have resigned as she refuses to play gay roles. She obviously thought she could try to win some money if she chose to be sacked rather than potentially owe the theatre company money for breach of contract if she resigned. She was still offered full pay but refused to engage.

But they didn’t fire her for what she said in the past as I understand it. They fired her for refusing to apologise and furthermore she was going to refuse to play the part as gay.
I remember this weekend this broke on Twitter - it was all anyone involved in theatre was tweeting/discussing and the pressure on the theatres was immense. The Chief Exec of the Curve gave evidence yesterday and gives a good account of the reality of the situation they were dealing with

The role she was playing had a massive part to play in all this. It’s an iconic gay role - you can’t expect to make homophobic statements AND accept roles which are hugely important to the gay community, get real!!

If she wasn't sacked she would have resigned as she refuses to play gay roles

So she should. That's very much in keeping with current thought, namely, straight people should not play gay roles.

This one happens to be a hopeless bigot and will lose her extremely ill-thought action. But even a non-bigot would be likely to come in for huge censure if they accepted that part as a straight person.

Wow! As she’s worked on The Color Purple before, there is no way she didn’t know about the main character in that production.... unless she’s monumentally arrogant or disrespectful of her fellow actors. She basically admitted in court she’s no good at a fundamental parts of her job - reading the script, working as a team, listening to the other characters on stage etc.

I'd like to apologise for my roque apostrophe

Rogue*

Not looking at the specifics of this case, but the principles behind it

The question here is, once again, whether it's OK to express religious views publicly - and I note than once again it's Christian, not a Jew or a Moslem (where the strictures are stronger)

The question here is what happens when two protected characteristics come into conflict. And the general view is that the position of the more disadvantaged is upheld.

Remember this when looking at trans posts on MN. The trans community is the more disadvantaged, so the (also protected by law, larger, more 'secure') group female non-trans find their position comes second, and is driven out of the public domain. That is why those who go too far in speaking their beliefs on how society should be ordered can find themselves ostracised, and unusually rightly so.

(fully expecting the GC pile on, but I hope otherness posters will realise that I'm talking about the underlying theory of what happens when two protected characteristics clash, not stating support for a view in either case)

@purBal - thank you for your post. I do not identify as Christian but my SIL considers herself evangelical and is horribly homophobic.
Sorry - a little off point...

So she should. That's very much in keeping with current thought, namely, straight people should not play gay roles

That is really not the majority view or policy or adopted custom and practice though. It was a high profile opinion.

That is really not the majority view or policy or adopted custom and practice though. It was a high profile opinion.

My perception is that it's becoming the practice. High profile cases can and do drive changes in thinking.

And recent cases very much incline towards public shaming of actors who take gay/trans/non-binary/disabled/black roles when they themselves do not have said characteristic- to the point of actors withdrawing from the roles.

@Butchyrestingface but that's really not what she's doing, is it? She's not trying to reinforce the opinion that straight actors shouldn't play gay roles and graciously stepping aside to ensure a gay actor gets the opportunity to play this role. She's a bigoted homophobe who believes her disgust with homosexuality should be given a platform because it is her religious right. And that she should be not only be defended but also rewarded for having these views.

@RoseAndRose

Not looking at the specifics of this case, but the principles behind it

The question here is, once again, whether it's OK to express religious views publicly - and I note than once again it's Christian, not a Jew or a Moslem (where the strictures are stronger)

The question here is what happens when two protected characteristics come into conflict. And the general view is that the position of the more disadvantaged is upheld.

Remember this when looking at trans posts on MN. The trans community is the more disadvantaged, so the (also protected by law, larger, more 'secure') group female non-trans find their position comes second, and is driven out of the public domain. That is why those who go too far in speaking their beliefs on how society should be ordered can find themselves ostracised, and unusually rightly so.

(fully expecting the GC pile on, but I hope otherness posters will realise that I'm talking about the underlying theory of what happens when two protected characteristics clash, not stating support for a view in either case)

I don’t see how this is the same at all. Quite the opposite. This actress was trying to force her views on others using certain mantra and resorted to bullying tactics. Rather like TRA’s really.

All human beings are sinful so how would she play any character?

@Aalvarino

I see she is being defended by Christian Concern, which was set up by her father. Hmmm.

So essentially it's a publicity stunt.

Any sympathy I might have had for her conscience was lost upon discovering that the script had not been read before acceptance. Fairly basic thing to do for any acting role.