Post by popcultureboy on Sept 29, 2019 8:08:18 GMT
If I'm reading that correctly, she is suing for the right to express her religious beliefs. She has that right. She expressed them. And now she needs to live with the consequences.
If I was 25 and my career was "in ruins" because I was an outspoken unapologetic bigot, I don't know if a public court case suing the people I believe to be responsible for my career being in ruins would really be the way forward......
It infuriates me that the Daily Mail has put the word homophobe in quote marks every time it’s used - if it’s some journo attempt at neutrality then it fails spectacularly as the tone of the article makes it clear that the author sides firmly with Omooba. There’s no need for quote marks - her statement is in the article and is undeniably homophobic.
Semantics aside, it’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. As I see it, the decision to drop her had nothing to do with her religious views and everything to do with her homophobic views. Whether or not the two are linked is irrelevant. She was sacked because she clearly held views that not only went against the fundamental nature of the character she was playing but also could have potentially put other members of the production team in danger.
I could write essays about how angry I am that people still feel entitled to spout hatred simply because they are expressing their religious beliefs. Religion is no longer the highest court in the land - our society is secular and your right to believe what you want must now be reconciled with everyone else’s right to live a safe and free life in this country. We shouldn’t stand for anyone refusing to apologise for homophobic remarks.
As I see it, the decision to drop her had nothing to do with her religious views and everything to do with her homophobic views. Whether or not the two are linked is irrelevant.
But this is the thing. This is the argument religious people are now constantly falling back on. "it's my belief, it's not homophobia". The absolute moral certainty that they aren't being discriminatory towards homosexuality, merely embracing their religion is even more hideous, I find. Religious beliefs are a protected characteristic, so she obviously thinks she's been discriminated against. This just doubles down on how blinkered, ignorant and unpleasant she comes across, so it'll do her career the world of good, no doubt. Compare her to someone like Laura Michelle Kelly, who is devoutly religious and has managed to somehow not drag this or any of her beliefs into the spotlight....
Well, I’m reminded of another bible phrase: you reap what you sow.
Personally I think she’s missed the absolute point: it’s not her religious views that have caused the issue, but her personal commentary. She didn’t just say she believes homosexuality is wrong (which her bible passages state) but that she believes people are not born gay (which the bible passage does not stage). As such, she is intimating that gay people have a choice and are making the wrong choice.
Personal opinion using religion as justification. She was totally in the wrong, and when given the chance to apologise for her comments by both the theatre and her agents, she clearly refused.
What she also fails to understand - sadly like a growing majority of younger people - is that whilst she is entitled to any opinion she likes, the rest of the world isn’t necessarily entitled to them.
I’m an advocate of social media, but Twitter seems to be the devil for this sort of thing. Social media should be nothing more than a tool for staying in touch with friends and family (or promoting your work if you’re in the public eye). When you use it as a soapbox it seems to almost always backfire.
I see she is being supported by the Christian Legal Centre. I'll just say they are worth a google and leave it at that.
She should've looked them up on Wikipedia before starting this, the precedent has already been set in one of their previous cases:
"Eunice and Owen Johns, a Christian couple who applied to become foster parents with Derby City Council. They withdrew their application after a social worker expressed concerns when they said they could not tell a child a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable. The two parties jointly agreed to take the case to the High Court, for clarification of the law, but the court sided with the city council; stating that laws protecting people from discrimination, because of their sexual orientation, "should take precedence" over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds."