Religious actress fired by ABC over homosexual storyline
We read:
"If you tuned in to the soap "One Life to Live" this week, you may have noticed there's been a change of character. One character in particular. Actress Patricia Mauceri says she was fired and abruptly replaced for objecting to a gay storyline because of her religious beliefs.
Mauceri played the recurring role of Carlotta Vega on "OLTL" for the last 14 years. But when she objected to how the writers wanted her deeply religious character, a Latina mother, to handle a storyline involving homosexuality, she objected. And for that she claims she was fired.
Mauceri, 59, a devout Christian, told FOX News that character Vega's gay-friendly dialogue was not in line with the character she helped create by drawing on her own faith. "I did not object to being in a gay storyline. I objected to speaking the truth of what that person, how that person would live and breathe and act in that storyline," she said. "And this goes against everything I am, my belief system, and what I know the character's belief system is aligned to."
Mauceri said she was replaced despite offering changes to the script and hoping for a compromise.
Source
There is no doubt that ABC were within their rights. And its also within their rights for Christians not to watch crap ABC propaganda.
An interesting thought experiment though: What if she were a Muslim and her objections stemmed from her Muslim faith? Islam is at least as condemnatory of homosexuality as Christianity is. Can there be any doubt that ABC would have negotiated in that case? Christians can be treated with contempt. Muslims cannot.
49 comments:
"Islam is at least as condemnatory of homosexuality as Christianity is. Can there be any doubt that ABC would have negotiated in that case?"
You can bet the farm on the fact that the ABC execs would kiss the burqa clad ass of a Muslim actress if she objected.
A full-scale attack campaign should be launched against, not abc, but their sponsers. That is how you get changes made in TV land. Go after their $$!
Actors aren't supposed to bring their personal beliefs to work. An actor doesn't play himself, he plays a part.
Does that also hold true for journalists? And just how do you sererate people from their beliefs?
Unless there is an exception for actors/performers/etc, the storyline is unlikely to be a bona fide occupational qualification or business necessity. With what is known so far, they rejected a compromise and if actors are protected under the civil rights act then she might have an EEOC case. Although, looking at things from the other side, if you need someone to be black for a role it shouldn’t force you to hire an Asian or Latino for it.
Actors aren't supposed to bring their personal beliefs to work. An actor doesn't play himself, he plays a part.
From the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Please show where in the law there is an exception for the vocation of "actor" or "actress" in regards to the above.
"Please show where in the law there is an exception for the vocation of "actor" or "actress" in regards to the above."
---Come on, you know that doesn't apply to the arts. Acting has always been brutal profession where people can get hired and fired for almost any reason. So far affirmative action has not invaded the arts becuase people are chosen on two things 1. Looks. 2. Talent. 3. Attitude.
Only famous actors can demand changes and get them, this woman is a secondary character at most, I doubt she gets a lot of lines in that soap opera. So if she doesn't want to play ball, the writer will write her death and that is that.
Is it unfair? I don't think so. If you wrote a christian film and some secular actor was offended by a line, how would you feel?
---Come on, you know that doesn't apply to the arts.
Once again, show us where the law doesn't apply to actors.
Don't just say "you know," because apparently we know and cite the law.
You cite opinions.
You show me where it says that someone cannot be fired for not doing their job. She wasn't fired for being Christian. If that had been the reason they probably would have fired her the first time they found out about her faith. She was fired because she went to the writers and bitched about the script and refused to play her part the way it was written. Her motives for not doing her job are irrelevant.
You show me where it says that someone cannot be fired for not doing their job.
The term you are talking about is "insubordination."
By law, you cannot be terminated or disciplined if you refuse to do the work given you if the task 1) is against the law; 2) places you or others in unreasonable or unjustified physical jeopardy or 3) the task is against your moral or ethical beliefs.
It's black letter law and has been upheld by the EEOC and the courts.
In fact, if you read the law, the employer has to provide some accommodation for a person's religious beliefs. That is why here going to the producers and writers and offering alternatives is so important. She was following the letter and the spirit of the law. The show was not.
So once again, do you have anything that excludes actors from being covered under the law?
"By law, you cannot be terminated or disciplined if you refuse to do the work given you if the task 1) is against the law;"
---So no actor could play the role of a pedophile or murderer.
" 2) places you or others in unreasonable or unjustified physical jeopardy"
---Yet some actors perform their own stunts.
" or 3) the task is against your moral or ethical beliefs. "
---Actors have been playing roles that are against their ethical and moral beliefs for years. In the movie Left Behind there was an actor playing the role of the anti-christ, in Brokeback Mountain two straight actors play gay roles, in Dahmer a law-abiding citizen plays a serial killer.
"In fact, if you read the law, the employer has to provide some accommodation for a person's religious beliefs."
---The key word is "person," a "character" is not a person. When Robert Englund plays Freddy Kruger he separates himself from his character. In the case of Mauceri, she works in the soap opera world which has never been famous for morality. In fact, soap operas often features adultery, can you imagine a married actress saying she can't play a temptress because it involves kissing men other than her husband?
Mauceri doesn't get it, she didn't create the role of Carlotta Vega, she's only playing a role that an entire team of writers developed. Her behavior is only going to make her Hollywood poison, ever heard the expression "actors are a dime a dozen," who the hell wants to hire someone who doesn't follow directions?
---So no actor could play the role of a pedophile or murderer.
Please reread what was said rather than trying to make up your own interpretation.
---Yet some actors perform their own stunts.
Please reread what was said rather than trying to make up your own interpretation.
---Actors have been playing roles that are against their ethical and moral beliefs for years.
Please reread what was said rather than trying to make up your own interpretation.
---The key word is "person," a "character" is not a person.
Using your logic, no actor would ever have to paid because they could not cash a paycheck made out to their character.
Mauceri doesn't get it,...
No, you don't get it. The law is clearly on her side here.
Once again, do you have any law or legal interpretation supporting your claim that actors are allowed to be discriminated against?
"Using your logic, no actor would ever have to paid because they could not cash a paycheck made out to their character. "
---Yes, but they get that paycheck AFTER playing the character the way the director wants them to play it. That's the nature of any job, you do what they want, how they want, or you can kiss that job goodbye.
"No, you don't get it. The law is clearly on her side here."
---Acting is not a democracy, the director is a dictator and if he tells that woman to have simulated sex with a donkey, she either does it or he'll find someone who will.
"Once again, do you have any law or legal interpretation supporting your claim that actors are allowed to be discriminated against?"
---Unlike you, I have experience dealing with actors, I've participated in casting sessions and was in charge of selecting actors for my radio commercials, and yes, I did discriminate based on talent and when we recorded our spots I made sure they read the script EXACTLY as it was given.
Are you a lawyer? Seriously, you and your laws, do you have a theater background? Do you know any actors?
Instead of relying on laws that are seldom enforced you should be dealing with reality.
Patricia Mauceri was fired for not doing her job, plain and simple. Her job wasn't to be a christian or to have morals, her job was to play the character of a Latina mother which means memorizing lines and acting them. If she doesn't like the lines, tough, do you think car salesmen always sell cars they like? Do you think waiters always deal with customers they like? No, yet they all do their jobs and smile at the customer.
Patricia Mauceri is full of herself, who does she think she is? A celebrity? Why would anyone tolerate the temper tantrums of that old bag? "Oh poor me, I'm a Christian, I need special accommodation, I can't read those evil lines, the world revolves around me and all those stupid writers need to give me lines that I like because I'm so damn important."
There are plenty of good Christians in Hollywood that do their jobs, Patricia has just made their lives a little harder. Now every casting director is going to assume that Christian actors are hard to work with. Seriously, the woman is a piece of work.
---Yes, but they get that paycheck AFTER playing the character the way the director wants them to play it.
Which of course has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Either the person is a character (as you assert) or they are an individual PLAYING a character.
That's the nature of any job, you do what they want, how they want, or you can kiss that job goodbye.
As I said, there are circumstances where the law allows (and in some instances encourages) workers to not follow the directions of a supervisor.
You have shown nothing that is contrary to that assertion.
Are you a lawyer? Seriously, you and your laws, do you have a theater background? Do you know any actors?
It is funny how you make the association that you discriminate based on "talent." That is certainly permissible and well within the law. What is not permissible is to demand that a worker do something that is against their moral code.
Are you a lawyer? Seriously, you and your laws, do you have a theater background? Do you know any actors?
I will take this to mean that you have no legal support for your assertion that the law doesn't apply to actors.
The rest of your post is just ramblings trying to say that you are right and that if you want, you don't have to follow the law.
Get back to me when you can support your claim that the laws of the country don't apply to actors.
"It is funny how you make the association that you discriminate based on "talent." That is certainly permissible and well within the law. What is not permissible is to demand that a worker do something that is against their moral code."
---If I go to CVS to buy beer and condoms do you think the cashier can refuse to sell me those items just because they offend her? No, she has to ring me up. Actors play roles that go against their moral code everyday, that's what you don't get and that's why I have no sympathy for this woman.
"I will take this to mean that you have no legal support for your assertion that the law doesn't apply to actors."
---We don't need the government involved in the film industry, period.
"Get back to me when you can support your claim that the laws of the country don't apply to actors."
---Whatever, you're arguing for the sake of arguing as usual. You're not an actor, you don't know any actors, you're not familiar with that world yet you think the rules of your workplace apply to that environment.
Frankly, I'd like to see you audition for a play, get the part, and then tell the director you don't like a certain line and won't read it unless he changes it. Chances are he'll fire your ass and replace you with your understudy.
you can go back and forth on this but the main point was would they have listened to a muslim over a christian. That was the main point right?
---If I go to CVS to buy beer and condoms do you think the cashier can refuse to sell me those items just because they offend her?
If she can demonstrate they are against her moral code, yes, she can refuse to sell them. As recently as last year the EEOC made to rulings that people of faith that abhor pork do not have to sell them if they are cashiers.
---We don't need the government involved in the film industry, period.
I will take that to mean that you have no legal support for your position and that you simply wish to deny people their rights.
---Whatever, you're arguing for the sake of arguing as usual.
You always seem to say that whenever the laws of the country are against you.
You're not an actor, you don't know any actors, you're not familiar with that world yet you think the rules of your workplace apply to that environment.
It is not a rule - it is the law.
And by the way, you may want to read
SAG's statement on this subject:
As to discrimination, SAG is committed to ensuring that its Members are not discriminated against on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, gender identity, pregnancy, national origin, ancestry, citizenship, age, marital status, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic protected by state or federal laws.
Further, SAG is committed to ensuring its Members are not the victims of any form of unlawful harassment, including sexual harassment or harassment based on any other characteristic protected by state or federal anti-discrimination and harassment laws.
Last time..... do you have any reference or law that says that an actor can be discriminated against on the basis of their religion?
"If she can demonstrate they are against her moral code, yes, she can refuse to sell them. As recently as last year the EEOC made to rulings that people of faith that abhor pork do not have to sell them if they are cashiers."
---Then they shouldn't be cashiers, this is ridiculous. If a person finds a job morally objectionable he should quit and let someone else do that job. Otherwise managers will simply think twice about hiring people of faith. Maybe it's time to abolish the EEOC.
"I will take that to mean that you have no legal support for your position and that you simply wish to deny people their rights."
---Nobody has a right to work, health care, housing, food or a college education. That's socialism and in America we believe in freedom. And for your information, most jobs are "at-will employment" which means you can get fired for ANY reason.
"It is not a rule - it is the law."
"And by the way, you may want to read
SAG's statement on this subject:"
---Of course, they're a labor union, they're the reason many companies are filming in Canada and Mexico, so they don't have to pay outrageous salaries and deal with union bullshit.
"Last time..... do you have any reference or law that says that an actor can be discriminated against on the basis of their religion?"
---I have no legal references, I have my life experiences and my knowledge on the subject. All your legal mumbo-jumbo doesn't mean crap in the real world, if that woman sues attorneys will bring up witnesses that will trash her. In fact, the more noise she makes the less likely she will ever work in film again.
Besides, the EEOC cannot dictate content, the government can't force a writer to change what he writes no matter who finds it offensive. If the character of that woman is meant to be pro-gay then it will be pro-gay, and if that woman gets hired again she'll probably have to play a different role.
So unless you have legal evidence that the government or a court has forced a writer to change a script then you have nothing.
Besides, the woman was never harassed for being a Christian, her Christianity was accepted until it interfered with her job.
Answer me this, if Heath Ledger had objected kissing his male co-star in Brokeback Mountain, does he have a right to demand that the characters be made straight or that no affection be shown on screen?
Should an entire movie be destroyed because of the selfish desires of one actor? Is that how you interpret the law?
---Then they shouldn't be cashiers, this is ridiculous.
The law is based upon the First and Fourteenth Amendment. Perhaps you think the Constitution is ridiculous?
And for your information, most jobs are "at-will employment" which means you can get fired for ANY reason.
Your position is morally and legally wrong.
---Of course, they're a labor union,
I thought you were basing your opinions on the experience you have in the industry? Are you saying that you experience is more vast than that of the entire SAG?
---I have no legal references, I have my life experiences and my knowledge on the subject.
Then you have nothing. It is akin to a guy driving down the road doing 40 in a 30 mile zone and when he gets stopped, tells the cop "I've been going this fast all my life."
It doesn't get you off of the ticket. All it shows is that you have been legally wrong for all these years.
So unless you have legal evidence that the government or a court has forced a writer to change a script then you have nothing.
I don't have evidence that the government can force a writer to change a script. However, what the writer and the producer cannot do is make a script that is against the religious beliefs held by an employee and then say "you either do this or you're out." That doesn't fly. It is discrimination. They don't have to change the script.
The do have to face the consequences of violating the law.
Besides, the woman was never harassed for being a Christian, her Christianity was accepted until it interfered with her job.
You just lost this debate. Right here. Right now.
Should an entire movie be destroyed because of the selfish desires of one actor? Is that how you interpret the law?
Religious beliefs are selfish? Morals are "selfish?"
You still don't get it, do you? If I am interviewing an actor for a role and explain the scenes in which he appears and then ask if those scenes cause him any problems, I am in the clear. The employee has the right to accept the position or not. However, once hired, if I try and change the deal to where I am forcing him to do something against his morals, he has right to refuse. If I fire or replace him, I am on the hook for the complaint.
(In fact, several years ago an actress signed a contract to do a movie with no nudity. After shooting started, they wanted a nude scene from her. She refused. They fired her. She sued. She won. Big.)
So now you know the law, you know the written experiences of people with much more expertise in this area than you, and you are without a legal or moral basis to stand upon.
You don't have to admit that you are wrong, but stop arguing the same items that have already been shown to be false.
"The law is based upon the First and Fourteenth Amendment. Perhaps you think the Constitution is ridiculous?"
---I think it's ridiculous to work for a business you find morally objectionable and use that as an excuse not to do this job. Imagine if an adult store hired a Christian and she wasn't willing to sell any smut. Would that make sense to you?
"Your position is morally and legally wrong."
---I've never had a job that wasn't at-will, so I don't know what you're talking about.
"I thought you were basing your opinions on the experience you have in the industry? Are you saying that you experience is more vast than that of the entire SAG?"
---I'm saying I've never hired an union actor or shot a commercial in the United States. My clients would rather save money shooting cheaply in Canada or Mexico and dealing with non-union actors so you can buyout their rights and never have to pay them another red cent again.
"I don't have evidence that the government can force a writer to change a script. However, what the writer and the producer cannot do is make a script that is against the religious beliefs held by an employee and then say "you either do this or you're out." That doesn't fly. It is discrimination. They don't have to change the script."
---That's ridiculous, that's like telling Stephen King he can't write a book that Christians finds offensive, or telling death metal bands not to perform songs the community finds offensive. Most professions in the arts are very simple, you either do the job or get fired, there's very little room for negotiation unless the contract says otherwise. For example, before an actress is hired she will be asked if she can do a nude scene, if she says yes, she has to do it, if she says no, she won't get hired or a body double will be used.
"Religious beliefs are selfish? Morals are "selfish?""
---When they affect other people, yes they are. For example, if your morality celebrates watching pornography that doesn't give you the right to do it at work. If your morality tolerates nudity that doesn't mean you can take it all off at a normal beach. Rastafarians for example believe it's moral to smoke marihuana, that doesn't mean they can do it in their workplaces. Other people may believe that eating meat is a sin, that doesn't mean all meat will be removed from the company cafeteria or that a state of the art will be created. Your attitude seems to be that a minority can screw the majority just because they have religious or moral beliefs.
"However, once hired, if I try and change the deal to where I am forcing him to do something against his morals, he has right to refuse. If I fire or replace him, I am on the hook for the complaint."
---But that's the nature of TV soap operas, characters change over time, in this case, an evangelical grandmother becomes accepting of her gay grandson. But let's look at it from another pov, say a gay character was supposed to go straight, should the gay actor oppose that because it goes against his morality?
(In fact, several years ago an actress signed a contract to do a movie with no nudity. After shooting started, they wanted a nude scene from her. She refused. They fired her. She sued. She won. Big.)
---But that's because the actress had a contract which spelled out "no nudity." This christian woman had no contract that mentioned the "morality" of her character or her christian beliefs.
---I think it's ridiculous to work for a business you find morally objectionable and use that as an excuse not to do this job.
No one said that acting or being a cashier is morally objectionable. Stop making things up.
---I've never had a job that wasn't at-will, so I don't know what you're talking about.
"At will" jobs are still under the same law. It doesn't matter what you didn't know before. You know now.
---That's ridiculous, that's like telling Stephen King he can't write a book that Christians finds offensive, or telling death metal bands not to perform songs the community finds offensive.
Buying a book or music is not the same as a job. Your point has no merit in this discussion.
---When they affect other people, yes they are.
Your entire rant has nothing to do with the situation of a person being forced to do something in the workplace. Stop making up stuff.
---But that's the nature of TV soap operas, characters change over time, in this case, an evangelical grandmother becomes accepting of her gay grandson.
It doesn't matter if it is the "nature" of anything. It is contrary to long established legal and moral principles.
But let's look at it from another pov, say a gay character was supposed to go straight, should the gay actor oppose that because it goes against his morality?
Yep. Now stop making stuff up.
---But that's because the actress had a contract which spelled out "no nudity."
No, there was no such clause in the contract and that was the point. Stop making stuff up.
This christian woman had no contract that mentioned the "morality" of her character or her christian beliefs.
She doesn't have to have it in here contract. It is the law of the land.
You can make all the stuff up that you want. You can lie all you want.
It still doesn't change the fact that the woman does not have to do anything that is against her recognized morals.
"No one said that acting or being a cashier is morally objectionable. Stop making things up."
---If the PRODUCT is morally objectionable to you then you shouldn't work in that business. You don't see muslim women competing in Ms. America, do you? You don't see Christians working in adult entertainment because even if they work as bookkeepers, they don't want to be involved in that kind of work. The same with casinos, it's rare to see a mormon working as a dealing blackjack. Acting is not a moral or family-friendly business, my parents forbid me from pursuing my acting dreams because they where afraid of the people I would encounter there, and to an extent, they where right.
"Buying a book or music is not the same as a job. Your point has no merit in this discussion."
---The writer of a book should have as much freedom as the writer of a screenplay or soap opera.
"Your entire rant has nothing to do with the situation of a person being forced to do something in the workplace. Stop making up stuff."
---The arts aren't traditional workplaces, fashion models don't go around saying "oh, that looks ugly on me, I won't wear it." Either you wear it or you get out.
"It doesn't matter if it is the "nature" of anything. It is contrary to long established legal and moral principles."
--It doesn't matter, soap operas are all about change, that's what makes them interesting, characters grow, they commit adultery, they get divorced, they deal with the suicide of a love one. Mauceri is impeding the growth of her character, she is uncreative and unprofessional.
"Yep. Now stop making stuff up."
---I'm not making things up. Rock Hudson didn't like women in his private life yet he made a living french kissing women on camera. Tom Hanks doesn't like dudes yet he kissed a dude in Philadelphia, that's what actors do, they act, they keep their personal morality in the closet and play the roles they are given.
"It still doesn't change the fact that the woman does not have to do anything that is against her recognized morals."
---You really go for that family-friendly crap, don't you? You really want TV to be like some goddamm episode of Leave it to Beaver or The Cosby Show. I guess you want soap operas without gays, without adultery, without backstabbing, tell me, do you work for PAX TV? Do you have some sick unfulfilled Disneyland fantasy?
People don't watch TV to get a lecture on morality, they can go to church for that crap. What the people want is to see others doing worse than they are, that's why Jerry Springer remains popular, that's why 90210 and Melrose Place enjoyed huge ratings for years.
Mauceri didn't get hired to preach about Jesus on TV, if ABC wanted an evangelist they could have hired Billy Graham, Jr. Mauceri's job is to portray a character, not to lecture Americans about how wrong homosexuality is.
Mauceri is a hypocrite, if she really gave a damn about morality she would have quit that soap long ago and work exclusively for Christian films. Instead, she decided to make a living in an industry full of gays and liberals, drugs, alcohol, adultery and all kinds of dubious behavior and now she complains about a bit of gay-friendly dialogue.
She's no different than those gays that join the Boy Scouts and then bitch when they get kicked out.
---If the PRODUCT is morally objectionable to you then you shouldn't work in that business.
Of course that isn't the law, so your point is moot.
---The writer of a book should have as much freedom as the writer of a screenplay or soap opera.
They both have the same freedom to write what they want. Neither has the right to demand that someone publish their book, or in this case, act out there screed.
In other words, once again, your point has been addressed and therefore moot.
---The arts aren't traditional workplaces, fashion models don't go around saying "oh, that looks ugly on me, I won't wear it." Either you wear it or you get out.
Which has nothing to do with morals or religious beliefs. Your point is moot.
--It doesn't matter, soap operas are all about change, that's what makes them interesting,
You're right it doesn't matter. The producer has no legal right to demand that someone do something that is against their religious or moral beliefs. It is contrary to the law. You have tried this tact before. It has been addressed and is now moot.
---I'm not making things up.
Sure you are. You keep trying to make up hypothetical situations that you feel show that you are right. You make stuff up.
---You really go for that family-friendly crap, don't you?......
The rest of your post is just another rant showing your hypocrisy against the freedoms of people with whom you disagree.
That is really what this is about. You don't like the moral and values that this woman has. So despite the fact that the Constitution and the law supports her, you won't stand up for her freedoms.
Why? Because it is in an industry that you like. That's it. Nothing more.
All you have done in this discussion is shown your continued attack on the freedoms of others, while displaying your hypocrisy, your ignorance and your lack of truthfulness.
"Of course that isn't the law, so your point is moot."
---I don't know what the law is, but I do know that if a slaughterhouse hires me to kill cows and I refuse to kill cows then I'll get fired. The job of an actress is to read her lines, dammit!
"They both have the same freedom to write what they want. Neither has the right to demand that someone publish their book, or in this case, act out there screed. "
---Actually, a renown writer like Stephen King can demand that his book be published as he wrote it or he can find another publisher. The same with ABC, they can demand that actors read their lines. I've never heard of an actor suing because they don't like the script, this is unheard of.
"Which has nothing to do with morals or religious beliefs. Your point is moot."
---Fashion has nothing to do with morals or religion? Some Christian women won't even wear blue jeans because they think it's masculine! In the fashion world sometimes models have to wear extremely revealing clothes, sometimes they have to parade in underwear. Your point is moot.
"The rest of your post is just another rant showing your hypocrisy against the freedoms of people with whom you disagree."
---Yeah, freedom for one person at the expense of everyone else. Freedom for Mauceri at the expense of producers, directors and the entire writing stuff. I guess everyone has to sacrifice themselves from Mauceri.
"That is really what this is about. You don't like the moral and values that this woman has. So despite the fact that the Constitution and the law supports her, you won't stand up for her freedoms."
---No, I've stood up for the rights of all kinds of people, but I do not stand for censorship and what Mauceri is doing is the equivalent of censorship. She's censoring the writers for the sake of her personal morality, that I do not accept. If I'm the writer and I want that character to be gay friendly it will be gay friendly and no goddamm actor is gonna stop me.
"All you have done in this discussion is shown your continued attack on the freedoms of others, while displaying your hypocrisy, your ignorance and your lack of truthfulness."
---You're no different than the atheists who demand that "God" be taken out of the pledge of allegiance or that the statues of the ten commandments be removed from courtrooms and public parks. Freedom doesn't mean everyone else gets to be a slave to your needs. A muslim can't force the school cafeteria to remove pork products even if they offend his religious beliefs, in fact, Minnesota muslim cab drivers have been ORDERED to pick up passengers carrying wine or dogs even if those things are offensive to Islam.
Unlike you, I respect the rights of authors, I respect their rights to execute their creative vision as they see fit. This woman's "religious freedom" is interfering with that creative vision, you can't defend one freedom by abolishing another, you can't censor one person while letting someone speak.
Freedom of religion applies to individuals, not the characters they play. If you can't distinguish between a character and a real person, you have a problem.
---I don't know what the law is, but I do know that if a slaughterhouse hires me to kill cows and I refuse to kill cows then I'll get fired. The job of an actress is to read her lines, dammit!
Your first statement is proven by your ignorance in the second. There was recently a case where a man was hired to work in a slaughterhouse. He then converted to a religion that would not allow him to touch pigs. The EEOC ruled that he had to be moved to a different section that did not violate his religious beliefs.
---Actually, a renown writer like Stephen King can demand that his book be published as he wrote it or he can find another publisher.
Exactly. Thanks for making my point.
The same with ABC, they can demand that actors read their lines.
We've been down this path before and your continued petulance won't change anything. No employer can demand that a person do something that is against their recognized religious beliefs. That's the law.
---Yeah, freedom for one person at the expense of everyone else.
How is "everyone else's" freedom compromised?
I guess everyone has to sacrifice themselves from Mauceri.
This is another really dumb statement from you.
---No, I've stood up for the rights of all kinds of people,
No, you haven't. You only support those that you agree with.
She's censoring the writers for the sake of her personal morality, that I do not accept.
Another idiotic statement from you. You have no idea what censorship is.
If I'm the writer and I want that character to be gay friendly it will be gay friendly and no goddamm actor is gonna stop me.
There ya go. Your rights extend past her nose, according to you. You are free to feel this way. You are also free to face the consequences of your illegal actions.
Freedom of religion applies to individuals, not the characters they play.
Freedom of religion applies to people on the job. Playing a character is a job. Once again, you are simply arguing against common sense and the law.
If you can't distinguish between a character and a real person, you have a problem.
The person is an employee. You don't have a right to force them to do things that are against her recognized religious beliefs. This is black letter law.
If you don't like it, then go to another country where you can espouse and practice your bigotry without consequences.
Until then grow up, buck up, learn the laws and stop acting like a five year old.
"There was recently a case where a man was hired to work in a slaughterhouse. He then converted to a religion that would not allow him to touch pigs. The EEOC ruled that he had to be moved to a different section that did not violate his religious beliefs."
---If that's your standard, Mauceri should be given a different role and let someone else play the part of "Carlotta Vega."
"How is "everyone else's" freedom compromised? "
---What do you mean "everyone else's" freedom? A smoking ban affects everyone, firing Mauceri only affects Mauceri. Religious freedom in the workplace is understood as wearing a cross, reading your bible during lunch hour, not coming to work on certain holidays. It is NOT understood and having the writer adjust the script based on your needs.
"Another idiotic statement from you. You have no idea what censorship is."
---And you do? I guess to you censorship only happens when the people you like get hurt.
"There ya go. Your rights extend past her nose, according to you. You are free to feel this way. You are also free to face the consequences of your illegal actions."
---Bullshit, there's nothing illegal about telling an actor to read his lines. I don't care if it offends his morality, that's what acting is all about, you're not being yourself, you're PRETENDING to be someone else. If a jewish actor was to play Hitler then he has to be Hitler, he can't stop all of a sudden and say "gee, this character offends my morality" or "gee, I want Hitler to be less anti-semitic." No, that's not how it works, and actor PRETENDS to be someone else, Maureci failed at that, the only bitch she could be was herself and that's why her ass is grass.
"Freedom of religion applies to people on the job. Playing a character is a job. Once again, you are simply arguing against common sense and the law."
---Actors don't own their characters, "Carlotta Vega" is not property of Mauceri, the character was not created by Mauceri, the lines are not written by Mauceri, the performance is not directed by Mauceri, so Carlotta Vega has to be played the way she was written.
"The person is an employee. You don't have a right to force them to do things that are against her recognized religious beliefs. This is black letter law."
---That's bullshit, the religious beliefs of Carlotta Vega are not the same of Mauceri, it is Mauceri's job to come on stage and BECOME Carlotta Vega. That's what a non-actor like you doesn't understand, or do you think Mel Gibson hasn't done things on film that are against his religious beliefs? His cop character was no saint.
---If that's your standard, Mauceri should be given a different role and let someone else play the part of "Carlotta Vega."
It is not "my standard." It is the law.
---What do you mean "everyone else's" freedom? A smoking ban affects everyone, firing Mauceri only affects Mauceri. Religious freedom in the workplace is understood as wearing a cross, reading your bible during lunch hour, not coming to work on certain holidays. It is NOT understood and having the writer adjust the script based on your needs.
There is nothing here to address as your point is based on ignorance.
---Bullshit, there's nothing illegal about telling an actor to read his lines.
Telling them how to read a line may not be discriminatory. Telling them WHAT they have to read, or WHAT they have to do may be.
---Actors don't own their characters,
Thanks for destroying you own comments you tried to make earlier. She doesn't own the character. She is a paid employee. She is therefore, like everyone else, subject to the same laws, rules and regulations concerning employees.
it is Mauceri's job to come on stage and BECOME Carlotta Vega.
Right. It is a job. Therefore it is subject to the same rules, regulations and laws as other jobs.
or do you think Mel Gibson hasn't done things on film that are against his religious beliefs? His cop character was no saint.
Please learn to read. You have a serious lack of comprehension skills.
An employee may choose to do something that is against his religious or moral beliefs. What cannot happen is that an employer force an employee to violate those beliefs. There is a distinct difference between the two.
Once again, if you have something that legally contradicts what I have put forth here, please bring it forth. As it is, you keep bringing up the same discredited points.
"Telling them how to read a line may not be discriminatory. Telling them WHAT they have to read, or WHAT they have to do may be."
---Actors are told what to read and how to act everyday. They're told where to stand, how to kiss a woman, how to grab someone, how to fight with a sword, how to pronounce the words, etc, etc, etc. Actors are not writers, they don't control content, they don't create content, they only perform. What you're trying to do is destroy the performing arts as we know it.
"Right. It is a job. Therefore it is subject to the same rules, regulations and laws as other jobs."
---You're being ridiculous, you don't know anything about acting, you think all jobs are alike and ruled by the same norms. Acting is different, actors often have to perform on nights, weekends and yes, holidays! It's usually illegal to make an employee work on Christmas, yet you can make that demand to your actors.
"An employee may choose to do something that is against his religious or moral beliefs. What cannot happen is that an employer force an employee to violate those beliefs. There is a distinct difference between the two."
---An employee has to follow the job description of his job. Nudity may be morally objectionable in most places, yet when Daniel Radcliffe who plays Harry Potter decided to take the role of Equus which requires nudity, it was agreed that he would take his clothes off. The play also requires that the character fall in love with a horse, that's how the play was written, that's how the actors must perform it. If Daniel develops moral objections to his role, he's screwed.
According to your views, if I'm playing Brutus in Shakepeare's Julius Caesar and I decide to become a Quaker and suddenly I find murder to be morally objectionable, I don't have to kill Caesar.
Don't you get it? From your view the capricious personal morality of an actor can affect everything. But fine, don't debate me, find yourself a real actor and see what he tells you. Most actors would probably be too afraid to do what Mauceri did, and for good reason.
---Actors are told what to read and how to act everyday.
We've been down this path before. Your comment here adds nothing.
---You're being ridiculous, you don't know anything about acting, you think all jobs are alike and ruled by the same norms.
See above comment.
It's usually illegal to make an employee work on Christmas, yet you can make that demand to your actors.
It is not illegal at all. It is not even for government employees to work on Christmas. So in other words, you are making a claim that is wrong.
---An employee has to follow the job description of his job.
Generally speaking, you are correct. However, the employer has no right to force an employee to do something against the law, against their morals, against their established religious beliefs, or that places the employee in danger of physical harm.
You may not like it, but the law is there.
But fine, don't debate me, find yourself a real actor and see what he tells you.
I did find a whole group of "real actors." Remember the SAG statement? They recognize that the law applies to actors as well. It is only you that are trying to carve out an exception for actors where there is none.
You have no legal, moral, or ethical support for your position.
"Generally speaking, you are correct. However, the employer has no right to force an employee to do something against the law, against their morals, against their established religious beliefs"
---Even if all that is true, a responsible person does not take a job if it involves aspects that are against his religious beliefs or morals. A jewish friend of mine for example applied once to a Christian company, when he saw that the employees had prayer before the start of the day and how there was only one jewish person in that company, he decided to look for employment elsewhere.
Why can't you understand that the world of acting has a lot of immorality? Think about it, McDonalds wouldn't tolerate an employee who tests positive for drugs, yet actors that have been convicted for drug possession have no trouble finding work.
"I did find a whole group of "real actors." Remember the SAG statement?"
---That's a labor union, of course they're going to say anything to protect their actors, I'm talking about real actors that act for a living.
In the end, some people don't belong in certain professions. Evangelical churches for example don't like honest gays, if the organist or the reverend comes out of the closet, he will get fired no matter how talented.
Ask Ted Haggard, he once was the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, he repented from his sin, yet do you think the NAE will ever take a chance on him again? Of course not! How can they trust a man who hired male prostitutes and did amphetamines? How can he have any credibility now?
It's the same situation for Mauceri, why would any director want to work with her now? How do they know that she won't play the same game the next time she finds something offensive? Even if Mauceri wins legally she still loses professionally. Nobody wants to work with a difficult actress, even you can't deny that.
---Even if all that is true,
It is true. You have yet to show any authoritative source that says otherwise. The rest of your rant means nothing.
---That's a labor union, of course they're going to say anything to protect their actors, I'm talking about real actors that act for a living.
SAG is made up of actors - real actors.
The rest of your post is a rehash of points that you have tried to make and are contrary to the law.
Either come up with something that is an authoritative that backs your position, or admit that you were wrong on this. There is no shame in being wrong. There is shame in acting like a petulant child that has been shown to in error, but yet continues to whine, lie and complain that his point of view is incorrect.
Grow up.
"Either come up with something that is an authoritative that backs your position, or admit that you were wrong on this."
----Fine, here are some quotes:
"When Mauceri balked because she didn't believe the character of Carlotta Vega would ever condone someone's being gay, the producers wasted no time in rightly showing her the door. An actor is hired to play a role, not write it, and while Mauceri was certainly within her constitutional rights to refuse to play the part, the network was equally within their rights to find someone who would."
http://www.afterelton.com/blog/michaeljensen/someone-explain-patricia-mauceri-what-actor-does
"Actors don't need to (and probably rarely do) believe what the characters they portray believe. One doesn't need to complete medical school to play a doctor on TV, one doesn't need to be straight to play a heterosexual love scene, one doesn't need to commit murder to play a psycho killer"
"As much as I will miss Mauceri in the role of Carlotta, I do not agree with any of this. Who is she to say that her own belief system is the same as her characters? That is the writers job. I'm sure half of the cast doesn't agree with the choices there character makes Do you really think Trevor St. John agrees with Todd's choices!? NO! But he is playing a character. Ms. Mauceri, please do not try and mesh your personal belief with that of your character."
"I'm an actor. An actor acts the character and not their own beliefs. They were right to fire her because she couldn't act! "
Do you get it now? She has the right to quit and the TV show has the right to get fire her. She DOES NOT have the right to control the writing.
Understand? She can refuse to play the role, but she can't change the role.
For example:
"t was widely reported that Chris Engen (ex-Adam "Young and Restless") exited his role mid-contract because he was unhappy with a kiss his character was slated to give Rafe."
http://www.creators.com/lifestylefeatures/fashion-and-entertainment/lynda-hirsch-on-soaps/lynda-hirsch-on-soaps-gossip-2009-05-30.html
Get it? Engen HAD to quit because there's no way in hell that a court of law is going to tell a writer what his characters can or cannot do. Engen didn't sue, he didn't bitch, and if you read this explanation you will see a mature response unlike that self-righteous Mauceri.
----Fine, here are some quotes:
Fine.
Now come up with some authoritative sources that carry weight in the real world.
You know, like a law, a case, an EEOC ruling, something substantial other than a guy who has no qualifications on employment law other than he may be employed.
Get it? Engen HAD to quit because there's no way in hell that a court of law is going to tell a writer what his characters can or cannot do.
Read it again. The quote specifically says that he had no moral objections to the part, nor did he have any religious objections.
Got it now?
You once again are trying to make up stuff to fit what you want the law to be.
I have provided you with the citation of the law.
You have provided the rest of us with useless ramblings and quotes from a blog.
Either come up with a legal justification that says that actors are not covered under the same "equal protection" clause of the Constitution and the Equal Rights Act, or keep quiet.
Anonymous, the fact that you don't understand what an actor does means it's impossible to debate with you.
And since you're obsessed with laws, maybe you should find yourself a legal blog where you and your fellow shysters can get together and plot against America.
Luke 11:46 “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them."
Bobby,
The fact that you don't understand that actors are not some sort of protected working class makes it impossible to discuss a this with you are you are absolutely ignorant in the subject matter.
And since you're obsessed with laws, maybe you should find yourself a legal blog where you and your fellow shysters can get together and plot against America.
Plot against America? You are the one advocating a class system where Constitutional guarantees do not apply to some people. You are the one saying that a laws don't apply to people because you think they are "special."
Tell me what do you base that on? What part of "equal protection under the law" eludes you?
You have admitted in this thread that you have no legal citations, case law or EEOC rulings to back up your position and yet you keep arguing that you are right.
You aren't.
And by the way, if you want to get into a Biblical discussion with me, you'd better bring something better than a verse out of context you found on Google while in your parent's basement.
Your pizza rolls are ready, Bobby.
Whatever annonymous, don't tell me you care about the constitution when you're so willing to violate the first amendment rights of a writer just because some woman claims her religious freedom has been violated.
Even if Mauceri had a contract any lawyer can prove that she breached her contract by refusing to act, because I really doubt there was a moral clause in the contract, or some moral guarantee that her role would never offend her.
Your views mean nothing, the art community doesn't follow your rules, they follow their own rules and their own standard. To them an actor who can't separate her personal morality from a character is not worthy of the title "actor." To them Mauceri is an obnoxious bitch that doesn't deserve mention.
Mauceri is finished, she's old, she's ugly, she's difficult, she's worthless. She doesn't deserve the title actress. Joan Crawford, Eva Longoria, Meryl Street, those are actresses and those women would never behave as unprofessioally as Mauceri did.
Why? Because they had pride in their craft, that's why Crawford submitted herself to a humiliating screen-test for the role of Mildred Pierce, because she wanted that role so much that she was willing to do ANYTHING to get it.
Mauceri is a waste of a human being. Other Hollywood actors may not have perfect morals, maybe they drink too much, take drugs, name their children after fruit, but when they're on camera, they act! They don't bitch, they don't sue, they don't throw tantrums, they act!
Whatever annonymous, don't tell me you care about the constitution when you're so willing to violate the first amendment rights of a writer just because some woman claims her religious freedom has been violated.
Hate to break this to you, but there is no first amendment violation as the writer is still able to write what they wish.
Even if Mauceri had a contract any lawyer can prove that she breached her contract by refusing to act, because I really doubt there was a moral clause in the contract, or some moral guarantee that her role would never offend her.
There doesn't have to be a "morals clause" in the contract. What she did was within the law of the land.
Your views mean nothing, the art community doesn't follow your rules, they follow their own rules and their own standard.
They aren't "my rules," it is the law.
Clearly you feel that the laws of the land don't apply to certain people.
Clearly you believe that you and your actor friends don't have to go be the same laws that protect the freedoms of all people.
You believe that you are above that.
Mauceri is finished, she's old, she's ugly, she's difficult, she's worthless.
There ya go. Attack the looks of a person because you disagree with them. She was so "difficult" that she had a continuing part on a successful show for 16 years. Can you say that? Out of all the actors in the world, can you say that you were a part of a show for 16 years?
You hate her because she stood up for her rights. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Mauceri is a waste of a human being.
More attacks on her simply because you disagree with her saying that the people who you support are not above the law.
All you have done in this discussion is shown how hypocritical and ignorant you are. You believe in the typical leftist mantra of "laws for thee and not for me." Your knowledge of employment law and Constitutional issues is non-existent.
You have been asked repeatedly to show any type of authoritative sources for your beliefs and all you come up with is an attack on the actress.
You can't even defend your beliefs intelligently.
Grow up.
"Hate to break this to you, but there is no first amendment violation as the writer is still able to write what they wish."
---Not if his actress won't read the lines that he wants. Scripts are published, they are performed! What you have been advocating all along is for the script to change to conform with Mauceri's religious beliefs, that is a violation of the first amendment. Even companies that provide religious accommodation don't change the nature of their business to take care of one employee.
"There ya go. Attack the looks of a person because you disagree with them. She was so "difficult" that she had a continuing part on a successful show for 16 years. Can you say that? Out of all the actors in the world, can you say that you were a part of a show for 16 years? "
---There are plenty of actors that have been part of something for 16 years, the only reason she survived was because she was lucky enough not to be offended before. But I still don't respect her, when I saw the film "Not another teen movie" I saw a scene that involved a real french kiss between an old woman and a woman in her 20s. It was the most disgusting thing I have ever seen in my life, yet I admire the courage of both actresses, who where able to ACT and put their personal feelings aside. Mauceri doesn't deserve my respect because she wasn't able to do her job once her job became a little challenging.
"All you have done in this discussion is shown how hypocritical and ignorant you are. You believe in the typical leftist mantra of "laws for thee and not for me." Your knowledge of employment law and Constitutional issues is non-existent."
---Oh yeah? And you're a fascist that wants to force an employer to keep an employee that doesn't' want to do his job. You'd rather have the EEOC force ABC to change the role of Carlotta Vega, you want big government in our lives. So who's the leftist now?
---Not if his actress won't read the lines that he wants.
That is not a violation of the First Amendment.
---There are plenty of actors that have been part of something for 16 years, the only reason she survived was because she was lucky enough not to be offended before.
That may or may not be true. What is true is that you have not had the same success that she has and so you attack her on any basis that you can find.
---Oh yeah? And you're a fascist that wants to force an employer to keep an employee that doesn't' want to do his job.
No job requires anyone to violate their moral and ethical beliefs. If you read the article, you'll see that the woman offered ways around the material that violated her recognized religious beliefs. In the law, this is something the employer must do. The employer is required to make accommodations for the person's beliefs. She was more than professional in helping them find a way out of the situation. She didn't have to do that, but did. She followed the law, and you despise her for it.
You'd rather have the EEOC force ABC to change the role of Carlotta Vega, you want big government in our lives.
I'd rather see ABC follow the law and Equal Rights Act. Remember the Martin Niemöller quote you tried to use once?
"First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."
Well here it is in action. When the people you support who think that they are above the law came for a woman whose beliefs differed from theirs, you didn't stand up to them. You didn't rise to be counted.
You cowered and went with them. Not only that, you attacked her as if her beliefs and principles were not worthy of dust on the ground.
You ask later in your post "whose the leftist now?"
The answer is clear: You.
So who's the leftist now?
You. Always have been. You run around pretending to be a conservative, but you aren't. You don't believe in the Constitution. You don't believe in Equal Rights for all. You believe that the Constitution and laws can be disregarded simply because you don't like them.
Like many leftists, your knowledge of the law, history, and business is lacking.
"That is not a violation of the First Amendment."
---If the writer is not able to fire an actress who's not willing to read the lines he wrote, if he had to change those lines to please that actress, then his first amendment rights have been violated.
"That may or may not be true. What is true is that you have not had the same success that she has and so you attack her on any basis that you can find."
---First of all, I'm not an actor, the last time I acted was in high school. Secondly, I don't get jealous of little people, I get jealous of big shots like Donald Trump and the like.
"The employer is required to make accommodations for the person's beliefs. She was more than professional in helping them find a way out of the situation. She didn't have to do that, but did. She followed the law, and you despise her for it."
---This isn't the case of a jewish actor that wants the day off on Yom Kippur, this case affects the first amendment rights of the writer who desires to communicate a certain thing. Do you ever watch Desperate Housewives? The actress who plays the character Bree Van der Kamp is pro-christian, pro-gun and pro-family. I don't know if the actress embodies those values in real life, chances are she's a liberal but when she plays her role she puts whatever moral objections she has aside. That's expected when you're an actor.
"Well here it is in action. When the people you support who think that they are above the law came for a woman whose beliefs differed from theirs, you didn't stand up to them. You didn't rise to be counted."
---This woman was fired for being a Christian, she was fired for NOT doing her job. If she had been fired for giving an interview where she spoke against gays, I would have been angry and would have fought for her free speech. But she got fired for wanting to force an entire company to change the script for her, and to me that's not acceptable.
"You cowered and went with them. Not only that, you attacked her as if her beliefs and principles were not worthy of dust on the ground."
---I've never had a job where my beliefs and principles mattered, I've always been a company man, what the company wants I do. So I don't sympathize with troublemakers.
Most employees do things they don't like everyday, some of those things offend them morally. For example, I have a college degree yet my boss forced me to carry furniture. That offends my morality, I did not go to college to become a mover, that was not in my job description, yet I did the job because I'm a team-player.
Acting involves a lot of sacrifices, a lot of actors complain that they hate the script, hate the director, hate the show, but they still do their jobs. Others have the integrity to quit, but very few do what Mauceri has done.
Did you ever see the film "The Big Kahuna"? One of the arguments in that movie has to do with morality and your job. A christian employee is expected to talk to a big shot about lubricants, instead he spends the entire time talking about Jesus because he thought that was more important.
Mauceri forgot that her job was to act which means becoming someone else and putting your personal morality aside. She refused to do her job and thus she was fired. I would have respected her more if she had done her job and then complain about it to the media.
---If the writer is not able to fire an actress who's not willing to read the lines he wrote, if he had to change those lines to please that actress, then his first amendment rights have been violated.
The First Amendment deals with censorship. No one is censoring the writer. He may still write anything he wants. Whether his prose gets used is a different matter and not a part of the First Amendment.
---This woman was fired for being a Christian,
Exactly.
---I've never had a job where my beliefs and principles mattered,
That is saying a great deal about yourself. I have never held a job where my beliefs and principles didn't matter. Maybe you just can't apply that which you do not have?
Most employees do things they don't like everyday, some of those things offend them morally.
You still don't get it, do you?
Others have the integrity to quit, but very few do what Mauceri has done.
Isn't it a shame that you worship a profession where people don't stand up for what they believe?
She refused to do her job and thus she was fired.
She refused to compromise her religious beliefs and stood up for them within well established law. All you ranting and raving isn't going to change that.
I would have respected her more if she had done her job and then complain about it to the media.
She did her "job" as a citizen in refusing to sell out for a buck, as apparently you would have done. I have more respect for her because she did so instead of cowering like you would have done.
"The First Amendment deals with censorship. No one is censoring the writer. He may still write anything he wants. Whether his prose gets used is a different matter and not a part of the First Amendment."
---You don't get it, when Mauceri demanded that her character not be pro-gay she was censoring the writer. The real issue her is whether writers can control the characters they create, if Mauceri wins and every actor starts demanding script changes, free speech loses.
"That is saying a great deal about yourself. I have never held a job where my beliefs and principles didn't matter. Maybe you just can't apply that which you do not have?"
---No, it's simply that in most professions you have very little power unless you're the boss, and even when you're the boss you still have to respond to your clients. Very few people have the clout to enforce their morality, Mel Gibson for example demanded that his character in "The man without a face" be straight even if the character in the book was gay. However, Mel Gibson was already a famous actor and the studio wanted to make a movie with him because celebrities automatically draw an audience, if Gibson had been a nobody, he would have been fired on the spot.
"Isn't it a shame that you worship a profession where people don't stand up for what they believe?"
---I don't worship the actors, I worship the writers, they are the real creators, without them actors have nothing to say. Those soap opera writers work very hard to deliver an entertaining product, they don't need Mauceri telling them how to do their job.
"She refused to compromise her religious beliefs and stood up for them within well established law."
---We've already establish that acting requieres religious compromises because you're not playing yourself, you're playing a character that most likely is completely different from you. How else do you explain actors who love God yet play the part of Satan? Or actors who hate republicans yet play the role of Nixon? Unlike Mauceri, they don't shy away from those roles, they welcome them with open arms.
"She did her "job" as a citizen in refusing to sell out for a buck, as apparently you would have done."
---There's nothing wrong with selling out, most of the hippies sold out and today they have nice houses, short hair and smell nice.
Her job wasn't to be a citizen, that sounds so much like Obama who thinks volunteering should be mandatory. No, her job was to act. I admire people who sacrifice their principles, do their job, and then complain about it.
"I have more respect for her because she did so instead of cowering like you would have done."
---What would you say to a racist soldier who doesn't want to shower with blacks and sleep in a cot next to a brown? Would would you say to the married soldier who has to wait 6 more months to see his or her children? Will you tell them to desert their units and follow their principles or will you tell them to grin and bear it?
Others do their jobs even when they don't like it, Mauceri should have done the same.
---You don't get it, when Mauceri demanded that her character not be pro-gay she was censoring the writer.
There is no legal or moral definition that would agree with you here.
---No, it's simply that in most professions you have very little power unless you're the boss, and even when you're the boss you still have to respond to your clients.
Yet in all professions, you still have certain rights as guaranteed by law.
---I don't worship the actors, I worship the writers, they are the real creators, without them actors have nothing to say.
That's funny. Really it is.
---We've already establish that acting requieres religious compromises because you're not playing yourself, you're playing a character that most likely is completely different from you.
Please show me where we have established that. This is a blatant lie from you. You maintain that because an actor may put aside their beliefs, that means that all actors have to do the same. Fortunately, the law disagrees with you.
So stop making up lies in a weak attempt to prop up what has already been dis-proven.
---There's nothing wrong with selling out, most of the hippies sold out and today they have nice houses, short hair and smell nice.
Once again, your stance simply shows that you have no moral character.
Her job wasn't to be a citizen,
That is who she is. She availed herself of the laws of the land. Either deal with that fact or stop talking.
---What would you say to a racist soldier who doesn't want to shower with blacks and sleep in a cot next to a brown?
I would say that the laws of the land doesn't give you the option of being a racist in the army.
In other words, the application of the Equal Rights Amendment is the same in both cases.
Will you tell them to desert their units and follow their principles or will you tell them to grin and bear it?
You keep trying to equate choices with moral principles. It doesn't work that way.
Either deal with the law or shut up.
Others do their jobs even when they don't like it, Mauceri should have done the same.
Others may not have the same religious beliefs as she does. The law recognizes that.
Now deal with the law or shut up.
Be an adult.
Come out of your parent's basement and deal with the laws that govern the country instead of what you think.
"Please show me where we have established that. This is a blatant lie from you."
---I've already explained that the nature of the acting profession involves people pretending to be things they are not. Joe Pesci is a law-abiding person, yet he has played the roles of mobster, torturer, lawyer, killer, adulterer and others. That's the nature of the profession, that's what expected. If Pesci becomes born-again in the middle of a film he can't suddenly demand that his role be changed, the same with TV.
"So stop making up lies in a weak attempt to prop up what has already been dis-proven."
---I'm not making up lies, the whole point of acting is becoming someone else. In fact, actors aren't the only ones that act, ever been to a car dealership? Car dealers pretend to like you even if they don't, they pretend to be friendly, they will say anything to make you buy that car. Lawyers also act, for example, many criminal defense attorneys defend people that they know are guilty, yet do they tell a jury "my client is guilty," no, they do everything to raise reasonable doubt.
"Once again, your stance simply shows that you have no moral character."
---Yes, we've already established that you're a morality and pseudo-puritan. Fine by me.
"I would say that the laws of the land doesn't give you the option of being a racist in the army."
---Not true, the army has a number of gay haters, racists, anti-semites, etc, it's a real ideological diversity there, the difference is that the army forces people to get along and even that doesn't guarantee that soldiers won't get into fights with one another. Besides, racism is not only protected by the first amendment but it can be covered by the freedom of religion clause since there are religions that embrace racism or racialism as they call it. Google "church of Jesus Christ Christian" if you don't believe me.
"In other words, the application of the Equal Rights Amendment is the same in both cases."
---If my character has to say "I love Hitler" and a Jewish actor refuses to say that line because he finds it morally offensive, and the court forces me to change that line then my creative freedom has been abolished. If this is a free country, I should be able to fire that jewish actor and find me an actor who does what I tell him. The same with Mauceri.
"You keep trying to equate choices with moral principles. It doesn't work that way."
---America is not about moral principles but choices. In this country we have the right to do things that may be repugnant to others, that's why the ACLU defended the neo-nazis when they wanted to march in Skokie, IL. That's why SCOTUS sided with Larry Flynt after he published a defamatory parody ad of Jerry Falwell.
"Others may not have the same religious beliefs as she does. The law recognizes that."
---How do you know? You think Mauceri is the only evangelical christian working in the industry? There are lots of people of faith everywhere, and most of them are good actors willing to do what their directors tell them to do.
"Come out of your parent's basement and deal with the laws that govern the country instead of what you think."
---Did your mother told you to say that?
---I'm not making up lies,
It is a lie that you "have established" what you believe to be factual. Once again, someone may CHOOSE to go against their principles, but an employer may not FORCE them to do so.
Deal with the law.
---Not true, the army has a number of gay haters, racists, anti-semites, etc,
Actually it is true. The military will not allow overt racist acts within its ranks.
Deal with the law.
If this is a free country, I should be able to fire that jewish actor and find me an actor who does what I tell him.
You are free to fire them. You will also have to deal with the judgment against you should the actor choose to advance an EEOC or legal complaint. You are free to do what you want, but there are consequences to your illegal actions.
Deal with the law.
---America is not about moral principles but choices.
And you have no right as an employer to force your moral or religious choices on an employee.
Deal with the law.
---How do you know?
Because you keep saying that her legal choice in this matter is so out of line. She has the right to do what she did. The employer had no right to fire her for her religious beliefs.
Deal with the law.
---Did your mother told you to say that?
Did your mommy tell you to type that?
"Actually it is true. The military will not allow overt racist acts within its ranks."
---No soldier has ever received a dishonorable discharge for using the word "nigger."
"You are free to fire them. You will also have to deal with the judgment against you should the actor choose to advance an EEOC or legal complaint. You are free to do what you want, but there are consequences to your illegal actions."
---I doubt the EEOC would come after me, I'm sure the EEOC understands the difference between an actor and an accountant.
"And you have no right as an employer to force your moral or religious choices on an employee."
---Tell that to Focus on the Family, they only hire people that are committed Christians, in fact, they even state that they prefer to hire Christians in their job applications. Another example is the police department, many of them won't hire people who have smoked in the past 2 years, which proves that businesses can and do impose their moral views on other people.
"The employer had no right to fire her for her religious beliefs."
---If her religious beliefs interfere with her job and there's no way to remedy the situation, then she should be fired. In this case, there was no other role for Mauceri and changing her role to what it was wasn't an option, so firing her makes perfect sense.
It's the same reason why churches fire gays, a gay reverend is useless in an organization that considers homosexuality to be a sin. The same with the Boy Scouts, although they do receive public funding they can still discriminate against gays, atheists and other people. In the case of ABC, they can't fire someone for being a Christian but they can fire her for refusing to do her job.
"Did your mommy tell you to type that?"
---You couldn't come up with a smarter reply? You must be getting tired.
---No soldier has ever received a dishonorable discharge for using the word "nigger."
Proof please.
---I doubt the EEOC would come after me, I'm sure the EEOC understands the difference between an actor and an accountant.
You would be wrong. You still aren't addressing the law which doesn't make the distinction you say.
By the way, how many EEOC cases have you been involved in?
---Tell that to Focus on the Family, they only hire people that are committed Christians, in fact, they even state that they prefer to hire Christians in their job applications.
You can't even see the contradiction in your own writings.
---If her religious beliefs interfere with her job and there's no way to remedy the situation, then she should be fired. In this case, there was no other role for Mauceri and changing her role to what it was wasn't an option, so firing her makes perfect sense.
Read the article. Your point here is a lie.
In the case of ABC, they can't fire someone for being a Christian but they can fire her for refusing to do her job.
We've covered this and all you are doing is re-stating the same points which have been shown to be false.
Deal with the law.
Tell that to Focus on the Family, they only hire people that are committed Christians, in fact, they even state that they prefer to hire Christians in their job applications. Another example is the police department, many of them won't hire people who have smoked in the past 2 years, which proves that businesses can and do impose their moral views on other people.
In such cases applicants know full well what they are getting into when they apply for working in such organizations. Obviously if someone had moral objections to a prospective employer's standards, he would choose not to apply there in the first place.
What would you say to a racist soldier who doesn't want to shower with blacks and sleep in a cot next to a brown?
I would say, "You knew you were going to be doing such things when you chose to take the job."
And if a Jewish actor were to play a role with a line of "I love Hitler!", he would know about that going in when reading the script to help him decide whether he wanted to take that role or not. If he had no moral objection to anything the script calls for him to do, he would likely accept. If he had moral objections, he would turn it down. But if after reading through the script and finding nothing objectionable in it, and he chooses to take the part, he is subsequently informed that his role now all of the sudden calls for him to shout out "I love Hitler!", and that is something he would have objected to had he known it would be in his role, then that is a case where the law protects that individual from being forced against his will to violate his own conscience and morality. Such a situation has various names - bait and switch, and fraud in the inducement among them. And such fraud is rightly unenforceable.
A good standard for the case here is, does the actor effectively say, "I didn't sign up for THIS..."
Post a Comment