573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 18, 2019 11:05:55 GMT
What you do in your free time is different from what you do in the workplace though, and although there are situations where one's out-of-work behaviour is serious enough to reflect poorly enough on your employer that one could be fired for it (and this *could* fall under the banner but it also might not), it's still legally shaky ground if an employee is able to personally hold bigoted opinions but also able to leave them out of the workplace and perform their job with 100% professionalism. True, but I think in this case her discriminating behaviour outside the workplace is a big deal, because the whole production is in danger, because of the public aspect. And then there's also the aspect of the production probably being full of LGBTQ people. If she held her opinions to herself, there is a grey area, but that changed the moment she made it public in my opinion. |
|
5,059 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Mar 18, 2019 11:19:31 GMT
Listen the church never has come across to me as a religious organisation, but merely a place that uses religion as a front to raise money, The Church of Englnd had shares in Wonga a organisation that uses to send their dogs out and threaten to break peoples legs if they didn’t pay up. Look at the ministers that send their kids to private schools, obviously they are better than us
God certainly moves in mysterious ways, all that good work he is doing especially in the US, where you have pastors in their hand made suits and Italian shoes, he is doing so much good work there, donate now.
The Church is a ruthless organisation and if you have a business on their glebe and struggle they will finish you up.
I hate religion.
|
|
19,782 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 18, 2019 11:21:52 GMT
Well it’s the first “proper” working day since this all kicked off so there may be consultations with legal departments underway right now. If she’s not backing down (and it looks like she won’t) they’ll be discussing it carefully to make sure they remove her in a way that won’t come back to bite them.
Will she ever work again?
|
|
|
|
Post by anthem on Mar 18, 2019 11:25:41 GMT
^I think she could make a good argument that she is entitled to freedom of speech on her own Facebook page. I completely disagree with her (being a gay man) but I do think it’s not as simple as it might first appear. It would be much clearer if she was disrespectful, rude or discriminatory in her actions to an LGBT coworker because of their sexual orientation.
She has her opinions but has she actualised them in reality? She hasn’t advocated violence against LGBT people or issued threats. If she treats LGBT colleagues with respect, dignity and professionalism in the workplace, then I suspect it would be more difficult to remove her legally.
I am beginning to think her silence on the issue means her views haven’t evolved though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 11:32:09 GMT
If her contract was terminated because of it, I'd guess she'd claim that it was because of religious beliefs Would any judge really accept that? It's amazing how far people can go with religion. First they use it to judge an entire group, and in the next moment they completely turn it around and use it to play the victim role, in order to get what they want. Would the legal system really put religion above actions?Yes, they could sadly. I don't for one moment think that she should be in the production and if she had a shred of decency she would have bowed out of the show already BUT what has she said that preachers and vicars up and down the country don't say every Sunday in church for example? She hasn't said "kill all the gays". She hasn't spat at one of her colleagues. She's done nothing illegal. She's "merely" expressed her opinion as disgraceful as that opinion may be. It's an absolute disgrace but there it is. It would be interesting to know what her fellow cast members think though. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 18, 2019 11:33:04 GMT
If the report of her hiding so she wouldn't be seen to be part of a Pride-supporting video is true then it is a clear indication that she is bringing her views into the work place.
Yes, that was on a previous production. But it looks like strong evidence to me that she has not evolved in her thinking.
I can't see how any LGBT+ member of the cast or crew could feel comfortable with her in the rehearsal room or on stage. The theatres have a duty to protect these people.
She has to leave the production one way or another. She could walk away and then work to demonstrate her ability to evolve and change. If she refuses, she has to be asked to leave - if that means paying her off, then that might be a price worth paying to protect her colleagues from such her toxic mindset. Ideally she should receive no pay off, but we don't live in an ideal world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 11:43:09 GMT
I don't think there's anything automatically *terrible* about "because of my personal beliefs, I don't want to be part of the company Pride video so I'm going to remove myself from the situation" though (depending on how she went about it, I guess. 'Hiding' doesn't suggest she did it particularly maturely, but it's better than, say, flouncing out or storming off). Yeah, strong evidence that she still holds her beliefs, for sure, but not in itself strong evidence that she will behave discriminatorily in the workplace.
|
|
19,782 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 18, 2019 11:44:43 GMT
To be fair though, I wouldn’t take part in a Pride video either. For different reasons obviously but try proving that in a tribunal.
|
|
|
|
Post by welsh_tenor on Mar 18, 2019 11:54:35 GMT
Will she ever work again? Soon to be seen on a cruise ship near you... |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 18, 2019 12:01:01 GMT
She has chosen to hold these beliefs. She has chosen to express them in public - and to have acted on them (if we believe that report)
It is very much a choice - and that choice is not one that all Christians make. So she cannot hide behind religion to give her blanket immunity for her actions.
I am beyond tired of having to have this fight over and over and over again.
I didn't choose to be gay. It has taken a very, very long time to get my basic human rights protected. I am not going to let bigots get away with hate because of any religion. Being a member of a religion - any religion - is a choice. A choice you can change. I cannot change what I am - nor would I want to.
We are now in a world where our past online behaviour is there to be found. We have to stand by that behaviour and accept the consequences - or be prepared to demonstrate how we have moved on and changed. If you are in a public role - as an actor - you are going to be exposed to greater scrutiny. Whether that is right or wrong is for another time, but it is the way of the world now.
Producers/casting directors/theatres are going to have to be more active in making sure there aren't any skeletons that will emerge to damage their productions. We can't expect our public figures to be squeaky clean - but we should expect action to be taken where bigotry comes to light.
|
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Mar 18, 2019 12:03:50 GMT
Double like above post!
|
|
4,179 posts
|
Post by HereForTheatre on Mar 18, 2019 12:04:38 GMT
They have just posted on twitter they are still dealing with the issue and a full statement will be released as a matter of priority.
I think if it was as simple as them just contacting her for an explanation and them being happy with what she said, then this would all be over and dealt with by now. My guess is they are trying to get their ducks in a row before coming out with a full statement. There's no doubt complications and things to work out in such a situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 12:19:37 GMT
They have just posted on twitter they are still dealing with the issue and a full statement will be released as a matter of priority. I think if it was as simple as them just contacting her for an explanation and them being happy with what she said, then this would all be over and dealt with by now. My guess is they are trying to get their ducks in a row before coming out with a full statement. There's no doubt complications and things to work out in such a situation. They will more than likely be trying to find a way to get out of her contract - unless there is a provision in it about not bringing the production company into disrepute then it won't be as simple as just terminating her contract, as that would leave them wide open to a discrimination claim (and yes, I know she herself is being discriminatory, but the law is what it is and the production company will have to deal with this within those confines). If they haven't managed to persuade her to resign, which really she should to try to preserve even a shred of her reputation and chances of working in the industry in future, then they will probably be thinking about how to pay her off if they have to in order to make sure she goes, while trying not to attract publicity if they have to go down that route. All depends on how stubborn she is being, though she really could do with looking at the bigger picture here and trying to salvage what remains of her career. The only way to do that is to resign. |
|
19,782 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 18, 2019 12:24:12 GMT
Scenario:
They can’t fire her because they can’t find a firm legal basis upon which to do it.
She refuses to apologise/back down.
Stalemate.
There are only two outcomes. She appears in the show with audience boycotting it or the producers pay her off.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Mar 18, 2019 12:25:17 GMT
What you do in your free time is different from what you do in the workplace though, and although there are situations where one's out-of-work behaviour is serious enough to reflect poorly enough on your employer that one could be fired for it (and this *could* fall under that banner but also it might not), it's still legally shaky ground if an employee is able to personally hold bigoted opinions but also able to leave them out of the workplace and perform their job with 100% professionalism. For clarity, I agree that she's REALLY picked the wrong career (like pharmacists who don't believe in birth control) and it would be for the good of the production and maybe even her own personal development if she were to graciously step down and do some serious soul-searching, I just don't know if "FIRE HER" is as easy a solution as the internet hordes seem to think it is. As an atheist I am deeply uncomfortable with someone being fired for their religious views - which these, as abhorrent as they are - clearly are. Freedom of religion and freedom from religion go hand-in-hand, and it's usually the non-religious or minority religious groups who suffer the most when religious belief becomes a factor in employment. It's not clear to me that the statement she made was actually 'public' either - I believe it was from a private Facebook account? So is this is a case of someone's privately-expressed views being made public? Because, as a point of principle, I just don't think you can fire someone for privately expressed views being made public, in the absence of evidence that those views have affected professional behaviour. And making Pride videos cannot be a professional obligation - it makes a mockery of Pride if it becomes mandatory, rather than people's voluntary expression of support. She should resign, on the basis that her beliefs are incompatible with the role, or she should make a convincing case that her views have changed, but she shouldn't be fired. If she refuses to resign then the audience will just have to vote with their wallets - there's sure to be other productions of this show - and the evidence that she is box-office poison becomes a reason not to hire her in future. I certainly can't see many people wanting to work with her if she doesn't bow out with some semblance of grace. |
|
4,179 posts
|
Post by HereForTheatre on Mar 18, 2019 12:27:11 GMT
I'm upset for the production. I know Curve were excited for the production, it's definitely something less commercial, which they have accused of being in the past, it is Hippodromes first co-production, the director is young and this is her big break with a musical and the casting seems really good (issue with the lead aside). It's a huge shame it's ended up in this big controversy and mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 18, 2019 12:33:52 GMT
As an atheist, I am perfectly content with her being sacked for expressing the beliefs she has chosen.
There are many interpretations of the Bible - and she has chosen a more extreme interpretation - one that runs contrary to science and a modern, tolerant society.
There is no such thing as a private Facebook account - unless you have no friends at all. Otherwise you are putting things online that can be shared and seen by others.
And there is a significant difference between saying 'I don't want to be part of this Pride video' and actively hiding from it.
She has already done significant damage to the reputation of the two theatres and the production. No apology will be acceptable - actions are needed not cheap words.
She has to go - voluntarily or otherwise.
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Mar 18, 2019 12:37:44 GMT
So is this is a case of someone's privately-expressed views being made public? Because, as a point of principle, I just don't think you can fire someone for privately expressed views being made public, in the absence of evidence that those views have affected professional behaviour. It's exactly that. It's a five-year-old Facebook post that another actor has made public, and the privacy settings on her Facebook page appear to be fairly tightly locked down - although I don't know whether that was true before this weekend. The fact that another actor made a public issue of it, though, does suggest that she's brought these beliefs into the workplace in ways that have not endeared her to her colleagues. There's a problem here, and it isn't going to go away, but the producers are going to have to tread very carefully indeed, because there are potential scenarios here which could easily end with her winning a wrongful dismissal case. |
|
|
|
Post by Seriously on Mar 18, 2019 12:38:41 GMT
Yes, Neighbour. But if they live in a different town or city its ok to hate them. Perhaps they've been taking these commandments too literally. That's a translation thing, though. The swedish version would be more accurately translated as "love thy fellow (human) as thyself - which makes more sense, put together with all the other stuff Jesus said It's a bit worrying that the "word of God" loses something in translation! |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 18, 2019 12:48:21 GMT
Someone is saying on Twitter that 2 cast members will walk from the production if she doesn't leave
Now this is, of course, just someone on Twitter - so can't necessarily be trusted
But if true, that will create an even big sh!t-storm around this production.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Mar 18, 2019 12:53:33 GMT
There is no such thing as a private Facebook account - unless you have no friends at all. Otherwise you are putting things online that can be shared and seen by others. I understand why you feel angry and outraged, but sometimes we have to look to the wider principles that protect all of us, even when they are also protecting people whose behaviour we feel is outrageous. There is such a thing as a private FB account, just as there's such a thing as private emails, private texts, private letters, and private voicemails, private phone calls, and private face-to-face conversations. We all say things to friends that we would not want shared with our employers. Sometimes those things are information about our sexual orientation and relationship status. We all, at some point, trust that people will not share that information in public. People do sometimes breach that trust - and there are all kinds of reasons for that, sometimes noble and justified, and sometimes very much not. I absolutely think that she needs to go, but to uphold principles that protect all of us, it needs to be her choice to go, in recognition that her position is untenable. It can't be her employer firing her. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 18, 2019 13:00:37 GMT
There is no such thing as a private Facebook account - unless you have no friends at all. Otherwise you are putting things online that can be shared and seen by others. I understand why you feel angry and outraged, but sometimes we have to look to the wider principles that protect all of us, even when they are also protecting people whose behaviour we feel is outrageous. There is such a thing as a private FB account, just as there's such a thing as private emails, private texts, private letters, and private voicemails, private phone calls, and private face-to-face conversations. We all say things to friends that we would not want shared with our employers. Sometimes those things are information about our sexual orientation and relationship status. We all, at some point, trust that people will not share that information in public. People do sometimes breach that trust - and there are all kinds of reasons for that, sometimes noble and justified, and sometimes very much not. If you put something online, you run the risk of it going further than you might intend. Whether that is right or wrong is, as I have said, for another time. The reality of the world is that our online past is part of our real-life present and future. You have to either own your online history and justify it - or demonstrate you have moved on. You cannot hide from it. If you don't want it coming back to bite you, don't post it. She has been found out and has to live with the consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 13:05:38 GMT
There is no such thing as a private Facebook account - unless you have no friends at all. Otherwise you are putting things online that can be shared and seen by others. I understand why you feel angry and outraged, but sometimes we have to look to the wider principles that protect all of us, even when they are also protecting people whose behaviour we feel is outrageous. There is such a thing as a private FB account, just as there's such a thing as private emails, private texts, private letters, and private voicemails, private phone calls, and private face-to-face conversations. We all say things to friends that we would not want shared with our employers. Sometimes those things are information about our sexual orientation and relationship status. We all, at some point, trust that people will not share that information in public. People do sometimes breach that trust - and there are all kinds of reasons for that, sometimes noble and justified, and sometimes very much not. I absolutely think that she needs to go, but to uphold principles that protect all of us, it needs to be her choice to go, in recognition that her position is untenable. It can't be her employer firing her. i agree- as someone who has had private text messages used against me by an employer (obviously, I should hope to anyone on this board in relation to anything homophobic) there IS a difference between what you share in 'secure' areas of life versus 'public' My Twitter for example is public, and linked in several places from my blog to this board so what I choose to put on there, is on the whole intended as my 'public face' wheras my Facebook I'm more fussy with in terms of who I allow to see it, and it is locked down in terms of sharing etc. Not that I use the damn thing much anymore, but that's the general principle it would be someone 'close' to me deliberately sharing things with the entire world that were intended for a specific audience. There's nothing 'illegal' about it but certainly, there's a difference and our right in curating online spaces. |
|
781 posts
|
Post by latefortheoverture on Mar 18, 2019 13:16:22 GMT
I've been in America for 14 days so I've only seen snippets of the story on twitter.
Whilst I believe everybody has a right to say what they think, I do find it a little awkward that she's going to play a character that explores her sexuality an awful lot, and that she is in an industry which has a lot of LGBTQ+ people that she is openly working alongside. Seems a little hypocritical if you ask me...
It's a shame as I was really wondering whether to go see this production, but with her in the lead, I doubt I will. The producers and casting directors couldn't have known this beforehand, shame as it will take a toll on the production.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 13:31:00 GMT
I've just made a call to the box office asking what will happen if they make the choice for her to continue and whether we will be able to see an alternate or whether they will honour refunds. They've said obviously they won't be able to say anything until an official statement is released, but they've had a number of calls today regarding the situation and they will be putting all concerns forward to the team making decisions. She sounded very much supportive and understanding of my feelings toward it.
|
|
