What happes when two different protected characteristics come into conflict?

[Comefromaway]

Apologies for putting this here as it isn't really a feminist issue but I thought it held some parallels with trans issues.

In the theatre world at the moment there is a big controversy over an acress who was cast in The Colour Purple theatre production. She is the daughter of an evangelist preacher and someone dug up some social media posts from a few years ago where she stated that she did not believe that homosexuality was right despite it being legal. According to reports she was offered the chance to redact her statement, refused and has now been sacked. She intends to sue for religious discrimination.

Has there been such a legal precedent before. I knwo there have been cases where courts have (rightly) found that it is discrimination to refuse services on religious grounds to gay people (eg bed and breakfast and gay wedding cake) but I'm wondering how this will all play out. As far as I am aware the actress hasn't tried to stir up hatred or refused to work with any gay colleagues (though I only know what has been reported. Everyone is saying she is homophobic but is simply holding those (religious) views and publishing them on social media a grounds for dismissal?

If one of the people has dick they usually win.

Other than that
In your case
I think it's fair enough. Theatre as an industry has a much greater proportion of gay people than other roles.
She's basically said that as a group she doesn't like them. She thinks there is something wrong with gay people. She believes they are immoral or something like that.
In a job where she will have loads of gay people working with her, it's not appropriate.
If she had kept her thoughts to herself that'd be different, but she's written them down and pressed send.

What if someone said they just didn't feel it was OK to be Jewish. Job at the Jewish Newspaper is the thing for them?

With employment it's not the same as providing goods and services. Employers have a reputation to protect, and also need to take care that their employees can feel comfortable at work etc.

People have been sacked for all sorts of extreme beliefs. Believing homosexuality is wrong is to my mind, in UK USA etc, a pretty extreme belief these days and not one that we want in society or that does anything but harm.

Religious differences -are protected for the personal probs but as soon as they start impacting on others that's different.

It will be interesting if it does go to employment tribunal what conclusion will be made. How do the courts police thought and which characteristic takes precedent?

I personally believe she has her bible wrong though as in her post she said she doesn't beleive it is possible to be born gay whereas the bible clearly talks about "eunachs". I used to sing at a black evangelical church and they had a similar extreme stance on it but even then it was a well if you have those "urges" you have to live a celibate life and not act on them rather than you can't be born like that.

I do think it was a very odd choice of role to accept considering her beliefs. I do wonder how much of it now is what she actually still thinks and how much is fear of ostrcisation by her family/church?

Thanks for sharing OP, it's a key question that is well worth asking, not simply for the trans ideology debate but for me it's useful for me to consider where my own lines are drawn.

I detest homophobia and racism but I find the trans ideology debate very different a very different issue, with very obvious similarities such as what a person believes.

I got a bit of push back from an old friend recently on my frequent sharing of articles in FB in support of women's rights and against the trans ideology and it also made me ask myself some important questions, including how tolerant am I of an opposite view.

FWIW if you are referring to the NI case re the cake bearing the message "support gay marriage", the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the bakers.

I do think it was a very odd choice of role to accept considering her beliefs. I do wonder how much of it now is what she actually still thinks and how much is fear of ostrcisation by her family/church?

Yes, interesting. I don't know how I feel about it overall, I have my limits with 'respecting religions' because there are some basic rights most religions would clash with. It was an odd role to accept, for sure.

I had a very devout evangelical schoolfriend whose take on it was:

Sex outside marriage is wrong
Gay people are not married and thus sex between them is wrong
Gay people cannot marry because God said it is for a man and a woman
So -- sorry, folks, no way of having sex without sin.

She was, in real life, perfectly nice to her gay friends, and happy to agree that they weren't any more 'sinful' overall than anyone else. Not sure where you go with that sort of set-in-stone view, really.

Interesting - I wonder if that’s more because they were being asked to write/ice a political slogan rather than just make a wedding cake for a gay couple. From reading the judgment that appears to be the case.

If she's an actor with a specialism in musical theatre then she's really shot herself in the foot.

"Odd role to go for" but all the roles in musical theatre are going to be similar!

Not sure where you go with that sort of set-in-stone view, really.

Yeah, me too. Its where to draw the line between opinions about other people and things they cannot change, and right to religious beliefs.

It's such an interesting and difficult question. My view is that unless she in some way intends harm against the gay people working with her she should be allowed to have her beliefs. I think once you start sacking people for holding unpalatable views you get yourself into all sorts of trouble.

We're seeing the situation at play at the moment with the Muslim parents in Birmingham who don't like their children being taught that homosexual relationships are legitimate. Judging by Gaby Hinsliffe's article today, the correct woke response is that gay rights trump Muslim rights in these matters.

Odd role to go for" but all the roles in musical theatre are going to be similar!

Well no, many many roles in MT are traditional boy meets girl. But Celie is a bisexual character.

Now you see in the Birmingham case (I’ve got s friend with 3 kids in schools there) I don’t believe the Muslim objectors have the right to demand those lessons are dropped as long as they are designed to promote tolerance.

I tend to think - or to hope, anyway - that if you allow children to mix with children from different backgrounds, they will learn tolerance. So if Muslim children go to school with children who have two mums, say, then they will learn to see that as normal. What really worries me is that the last Labour government allowed the creation of more single-faith schools (until then, the only faith schools had been Catholic and C of E), and schools like that are breeding grounds for intolerance.

So if Muslim children go to school with children who have two mums, say, then they will learn to see that as normal.

Or you sadly get the case where the child with two mums is bullied/ostracised for having two mums.

Someone who thinks homosexual acts are a sin playing a bisexual character......

Who the heck are we going to get to play Lady Macbeth then, because last time I looked we had a shortage of female psychopathic actors..............

She should be free to believe whatever she believes, what she does, either whilst interacting with colleagues, or performing the role, is a different matter.

Lots of people believe homosexuality is a sin -- I respect their right to believe that, and also expect my right to argue vehemently and forcefully against such stupid outdated religious nonsense. But sacking people for their beliefs, not their actions, we all know where that ends (and it never went well for gay people BTW, if you look at what used to be done in the armed forces.........).

What we really desperately need is the ability to understand that different people have different beliefs, and that is fine, as long as they treat people decently. I won't inquire into your precise theological stance, it's not my business, just as what I do or don't get up to in bed and who with is none of yours............

Everybody is entitled to their beliefs but you can’t compel belief or speech. Nobody should be discriminated against for their beliefs (or any other protected characteristic).

The Irish Gay Cake case is a really good ruling.

How this one is going to go is going to depend on exactly what the tweets said.

Lots of different things will come into play here.

I didn't know the character was bisexual

That's much less of an issue surely as the whole point of actors is they act?

The thing that would not be appropriate is someone who has published comments online essentially saying that being gay is wrong,

Is in a workplace that is famously disproportionately populated with gay people!

I mean what a div she is TBH

Oh I'm an actor and my chosen form is musical theatre
MMMMMmmmmm what shall I do?
I KNOW post on the internet that I think being gay is wrong

Lots of people believe homosexuality is a sin -- I respect their right to believe that, and also expect my right to argue vehemently and forcefully against such stupid outdated religious nonsense. But sacking people for their beliefs, not their actions, we all know where that ends (and it never went well for gay people BTW, if you look at what used to be done in the armed forces.........).

Thats pretty much my exact take on the situation SomeDyke but in the theatre community (performers and audience) it appears my view is a monority. There is a real witchunt which led to her sacking.

Repeal this is the original social media post

The thing that would not be appropriate is someone who has published comments online essentially saying that being gay is wrong,

I most vehemently disagree. I have worked with people, who when asked, said they believed being gay is wrong. I'm not an idiot, I know a lot of people believe such things. And frankly should be free to discuss and try to spread their particular belief system. As long as they treat me decently whilst in a work situation, I don't mind. If they want a debate about it, and I agree, then crack on! But saying that no one who believes such things is free to work with me because what? Because their particular religious beliefs might upset my gay vibes and make me all upset? What utter dangerous nonsense!

I don't care what you believe as long as you treat me decently, I don't expect to become your best bud and I won't invite you to my wedding. Get over it folks, a lot of people believe lots of weird shit, we just have to act like reasonable human beings and rub along. Jeez, they ain't all the Westboro Baptist Church you know.............

I think if the tweets were a simple statement of her faith, "homosexuality is wrong no matter what the law says", as opposed to "burn all the gays" then she should not be sacked.

People are perfectly entitled to believe, and say in public that homosexuality is wrong, that there is a god, that transwomen are not women.

What they cannot do is impose those beliefs on others or discriminate against people with those beliefs. It seems that the woman in the OP has done neither of these?

She tweeted something, she hasn't refused to work with gay or lesbian actors, or encouraged her employers to sack them or anything?

I think she’s entitled to her views (I disagree with them) I don’t think she should be sacked for that post. I think she should realise that religious posts are likely to upset someone.

Was she employed by the people who sacked her at the time she posted that? What was their social media policy?

Repeal this is the original social media post

I can't see anything wrong with at all. If that is all it was definitely wrong for her to be sacked

The gay cake case:

It is not OK to refuse to serve gay people as that's discriminatory.

It is OK to refuse to reproduce or promote a political statement you disagree with as that's against your freedom of conscious.

In the case above I bet the position would be that
a) she's made a statement which is discriminatory in a public manner who has effect on others for which she is responsible for
b) her employer found this and gave the opportunity to qualify or remove the comments, because if she is a face of their organisation this is a problem as they are associated with a comment which is problematic.

If the comment was in a private way and not associated with the organisation she would have the right to say it.

If its public and qualified - as a public interest or concern in terms of potential harm to others; for example how political correctness is preventing certain groups from being challenged for illegal behaviour that other groups would be purely because of their identity - then an organisation should uphold a right to say those things even if they disagree.

The key point being, is the intent to be prejudical to others or to raise a debate, concern or issue to another vulnerable group?

You can't just claim religious discrimination if you are just raising a belief that gay people are amoral and you think you should be allowed to say that on social media openly and in a very public way.

It's all about intent and whether your platform is public or private.

Her intent on going on social media is to promote views which are discriminatory in nature. How is someone being homosexual causing her harm?

If she is not being asked to promote views which are against her own, then there isn't an issue. She should, in theory, be able to reserve the right not to take part in pride events for example (provided the job does not explicitly state when advertised that would be her task) but the flip of that is she can't not publicly promote views which discriminate against others on the basis of identity alone either.

This is where we run into difficulties as people in the public sector for example, have a duty of care to prevent harm as part of their job. Thus if they see something which might cause harm they should be not just able to speak up but encouraged to do so. They should not fear that they will be being perceived as being discriminatory for raising concerns of harm to others who are vulnerable because one party happens to have a protected status.

The lack of understanding of purpose, intent and responsibility is where this is all falling down.

Her last show was Little Shop of Horrors which starred a drag queen so no, she hasn’t although she did decide to “hide herself away” rather than join the rest of the cast in the Gay Pride march.