Fired Color Purple actress sues for religious discrimination- Page 5

[joevitus]

Posted: 3/31/21 at 10:39pm

Agree with you completely.

And, yeah, when Damon was giving interviews at the time The Talented Mr. Ripley came out (pun?), he was saying the character wasn't gay, he just tried to fit in and emulate anyone he was around. Don't know if the said that out of fear that a "gay movie" would bomb at the box office, or he really believed it, but I tend to think it was a combination of both.

[SeanD2]

Posted: 4/1/21 at 10:17am

Here's how the US right-wing media is covering this story in case anyone is interested:

 

Judges slam actress with $480,000 penalty for Christian beliefs

Side with theatrical company that fired her for 4-year-old Facebook post

Judges on an Employment Tribunal in the United Kingdom have ordered an actress to pay $480,000, ruling her complaint for being fired for her Christian beliefs on sexuality was unjustified.

Seyi Omooba was contracted by Leicester Curve Theatre to play the lead role in "The Colour Purple" but was fired when someone dug out a four-year-old Facebook post in which she affirmed the biblical view of homosexuality.

Before the controversy, Omooba was described by reviewers as "jaw-droppingly good," with "ferocious gospel vocals."

She sued for discrimination, and an Employment Tribunal recently heard her case.

Andrea Williams, chief executive for Christian Concern, which is linked to the Christian Legal Centre, said the Employment Tribunal "has now given its stamp of official approval to everything the Theatre and the Agency have done to Seyi."

"Moreover, the Tribunal has concluded it was unreasonable for her even to complain, and on that basis, ordered her to pay the full legal costs incurred by her opponents – estimated to be an extraordinary £350,000. The Employment Tribunal is meant to be a costs-free forum – each side bears its own costs."

She said the costs are some 15 times more than the usual tribunal case, apparently because the defendants were "so concerned about it that they hired the most expensive solicitor firms, a specialist QC and senior counsel to defend what they now try to make out was a hopeless case."

Williams said the Tribunal "joined in for good measure."

The decision, she said, exposes "the darker depths of 21st century totalitarianism."

"Where stabbing a colleague in the back is not merely within the norm, but a professional duty. Where, having once deviated in your mind from the ideological orthodoxy, you cannot trust anyone or anything: even a favorite book of your adolescence may be suddenly re-interpreted to become an indictment against you."

Williams said it should have been an open-and-shut case.

But Omooba was up against a "PR campaign" by Curve Theatre and the agency that fired her, Global Artists.

They drummed up "support from the vociferous movement of ‘LGBTQ+ and allies’, and hired aggressive heavyweight barristers to attempt a very public character assassination in the witness box."

 

--

And it goes on from there

 

[joevitus]

Posted: 4/1/21 at 3:29pm

Until it goes crazy at the end, the article is mostly factual: it was an old post, it was written to express her Christian beliefs, and that was the response of the tribunal. 

Only when you get to "support from the vociferous movement of ‘LGBTQ+ and allies’, and hired aggressive heavyweight barristers to attempt a very public character assassination in the witness box" do we get the full-on crazy. Even there, for all the dog whistling the article indulges in,  as many comments here demonstrate, this isn't an issue being evaluated in a calm, reasoned manor. The feelings the issue generates are intense. Deservedly so, I'd say, but I'm not sure it's wrong to claim most of those who oppose Omooba are indeed vociferous in their opposition. A better question would be: is it particularly wrong to be vociferous in terms of the issue involved?

[HogansHero]

Posted: 4/1/21 at 4:12pm

joevitus said: "Until it goes crazy at the end, the article is mostly factual: it was an old post, it was written to express her Christian beliefs, and that was the response of the tribunal."

Is it? What was the discrimination that was before the tribunal? [Hint: there wasn't any.]