ChatterBank3 mins ago
Homophobic Bigot Loses Case.......
172 Answers
https:/
...bet she wished she'd kept her trap shut.
...bet she wished she'd kept her trap shut.
Answers
And it's goodnight from the Jim and Naomi show, with guest star Pixie. Tune in tomorrow for another enthralling edition.
00:37 Thu 18th Feb 2021
//The entry, written when the Christian actress was 20, said: "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 its right."//
I've heard a lot worse than that, & her issue isn't defending what she once said, (though it's a view she's entitled to) but losing an acting part because of it.
I've heard a lot worse than that, & her issue isn't defending what she once said, (though it's a view she's entitled to) but losing an acting part because of it.
That would be fine, jno, but having already accepted the job, refusing then to play it as requested is refusing to do the job properly. If a homophobe refuses to play any gay characters before accepting the role, then that's their free choice; although, given the publicity surrounding this case, I doubt she'll find employment in acting any time soon.
It isn't a "script change" either -- part of the theatre's case is that (a) this was already a clear elment of the story, as affirmed by its author,(b) she hadn't read the script they'd sent properly, (c) other productions have made the same interpretation, including one Omooba was previously involved in.
Moreover, if you stick by homophobic comments then you are essentially making them afresh. That's toxic both for the working environment and, in this day and age, for the company itself to be seen to tolerate such bigotry.
It isn't a "script change" either -- part of the theatre's case is that (a) this was already a clear elment of the story, as affirmed by its author,(b) she hadn't read the script they'd sent properly, (c) other productions have made the same interpretation, including one Omooba was previously involved in.
Moreover, if you stick by homophobic comments then you are essentially making them afresh. That's toxic both for the working environment and, in this day and age, for the company itself to be seen to tolerate such bigotry.
Khandro - // I've heard a lot worse than that, & her issue isn't defending what she once said, (though it's a view she's entitled to) but losing an acting part because of it. //
Firstly, because one situation is 'worse' does not make another situation 'better' - that is no defence whatsoever.
She did not 'lose an acting part because of it' - she chose not to play the part, having initially agreed so to do, and then refused full payment from the company.
Her view is abhorrent, regardless of whether or not you have heard 'worse' Khandro, and she has rightly been laughed out of court for her arrogance, and pillioried for her appalling 'Christian' bigotry.
Firstly, because one situation is 'worse' does not make another situation 'better' - that is no defence whatsoever.
She did not 'lose an acting part because of it' - she chose not to play the part, having initially agreed so to do, and then refused full payment from the company.
Her view is abhorrent, regardless of whether or not you have heard 'worse' Khandro, and she has rightly been laughed out of court for her arrogance, and pillioried for her appalling 'Christian' bigotry.
"but losing an acting part because of it."
No, she refused to do it, so they offered her the full salary to leave the cast so as to salvage the production but she wanted MORE money. As a result of the tribunal - and her hateful vendetta against the Curve - she will have no doubt lost many future opportunities in this field.
No, she refused to do it, so they offered her the full salary to leave the cast so as to salvage the production but she wanted MORE money. As a result of the tribunal - and her hateful vendetta against the Curve - she will have no doubt lost many future opportunities in this field.
//[N]ot employing her again, because of her personal beliefs, is just a different kind of bigotry. //
How does that figure? Every employer is within their rights to refuse to work with somebody who's openly homophobic or bigoted in some other way. She's welcome to apologise for and disavow her homophobia, and find employment having seen sense that her religious views are, at the very least, her private business and nobody else's.
The idea that refusing to tolerate bigotry is itself bigoted is nonsensical.
How does that figure? Every employer is within their rights to refuse to work with somebody who's openly homophobic or bigoted in some other way. She's welcome to apologise for and disavow her homophobia, and find employment having seen sense that her religious views are, at the very least, her private business and nobody else's.
The idea that refusing to tolerate bigotry is itself bigoted is nonsensical.
I disagree, Andy. "Bigotry" is very subjective. I think Jim would confirm that sometimes, his and my views of it, can be polar opposites.
Having an unpopular view, or even what you see as "abhorrent" is one thing, whether you like someone or not. Being paid to do a professional job, just depends on whether you are willing and able to do it properly.
Not every employed person is likeable by everyone, it's to do the job.
Having an unpopular view, or even what you see as "abhorrent" is one thing, whether you like someone or not. Being paid to do a professional job, just depends on whether you are willing and able to do it properly.
Not every employed person is likeable by everyone, it's to do the job.
//Not every employed person is likeable by everyone, it's to do the job.//
A job she refused to do as instructed. She was lucky to have been offered the full wage by the theatre, and if she had any semblance on intelligence, she would've accepted that and moved on with her life. Now she's going to have a hard time getting any work.
A job she refused to do as instructed. She was lucky to have been offered the full wage by the theatre, and if she had any semblance on intelligence, she would've accepted that and moved on with her life. Now she's going to have a hard time getting any work.
jim, part of her case is that it wasn't clear in the script at all. As I mentioned above, it's almost non-existent in the film.
There are echoes of Hollywood #MeToo in this: actresses being told halfway through a production to remove their clothes even though the script didn't mention it.
I haven't seen the script she saw (has anyone?) so I can't say who's right on this; but without doing so I wouldn't accuse her of being unprofessional.
There are echoes of Hollywood #MeToo in this: actresses being told halfway through a production to remove their clothes even though the script didn't mention it.
I haven't seen the script she saw (has anyone?) so I can't say who's right on this; but without doing so I wouldn't accuse her of being unprofessional.
// I’ve seen others of a religious persuasion accept jobs that they subsequently refuse to properly fulfil - and they are not fired but are afforded special concessions.//
Depends on the example, I suppose, but in general I'm against making exemptions except in the limited case that the exemptions are easy to find workarounds for. For example, if a Jewish person would refuse to work on Saturdays (or a Christian on Sundays), it's presumably not unreasonable to give them shifts on other days instead. On the other hand, if a shop assistant refused to handle (and therefore to sell) alcohol, then it would be wrong to place them at a till because inevitably that would directly impact the customer at some point; they should either be reassigned to a role that doesn't "force" them to make a decision against their religious beliefs, or find a different job.
Depends on the example, I suppose, but in general I'm against making exemptions except in the limited case that the exemptions are easy to find workarounds for. For example, if a Jewish person would refuse to work on Saturdays (or a Christian on Sundays), it's presumably not unreasonable to give them shifts on other days instead. On the other hand, if a shop assistant refused to handle (and therefore to sell) alcohol, then it would be wrong to place them at a till because inevitably that would directly impact the customer at some point; they should either be reassigned to a role that doesn't "force" them to make a decision against their religious beliefs, or find a different job.
I'm basing some of my comments on this separate report, jno:
https:/
// [Omooba] went on to admit that she didn't read the script before auditioning for the show and still hadn't read it even when offered (and accepted) the part. //
https:/
// [Omooba] went on to admit that she didn't read the script before auditioning for the show and still hadn't read it even when offered (and accepted) the part. //
Latest Posts
Body & Soul4 mins ago
Today I Heard My First . . . . .
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Is This Man A Good Pick For Secretary Of...
News17 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.