THE COLOR PURPLE actress: “homosexuality isn’t right” — Page 2

GeorgeandDot said: "The worst part is that she's playing Celie.

Gay for pay."

It adds insult to injury for sure, but someone with her background (edit: meaning her tweet and her father) should not be near this musical in general. As the company behind it I would be worried about how it reflects on the company's image and how other people in the cast & crew would feel about working with her - and I'd not be willing to take that gamble.

Updated On: 3/17/19 at 02:19 PM

dramamama611 said: "The difference is her ideas are offensive to both her fellow actors AND the play. Another example that would be offensive? An anti-semite playing Anne Frank."

What Oluwaseyi Omooba does is actually worse than an anti-semite playing Anne Frank. Antisemitism (which is horrible) can be based on disapproval of a certain religion or ethnicity, which doesn't necessarily mean a religious motive. Religion is always a choice and atheists (or any person) can judge religion for various reasons. Excluding a certain ethnicity is also horrible, but also has nothing to do with the religion of the person who does it. It's just bad behaviour but then at least we can blame the person for doing it. I feel that when an anti-semite would actually play Anne Frank there could be a possibility that the person actually changes their mindset and starts to think about things from multiple angles. With religion this is different because the original judgement has no foundation and they still choose it. Also, you can't compare this with something like sexuality, where there is actually no choice.

Dave28282 said: "dramamama611 said: "The difference is her ideas are offensive to both her fellow actors AND the play. Another example that would be offensive? An anti-semite playing Anne Frank."

WhatOluwaseyi Omooba does is actually worse than an anti-semite playing Anne Frank. Antisemitism (which is horrible) can be based on disapproval of a certain religion or ethnicity, which doesn't necessarily mean a religious motive. Religion is always a choice and atheists (or any person) can judge religion for various reasons. Excluding a certain ethnicity is also horrible, but also has nothing to do with the religion of the person who does it. It's just bad behaviour but then at least we can blame the person for doing it.I feel that when an anti-semite would actually play Anne Frank there could be a possibility that the person actually changes their mindset and starts to think about things from multiple angles. With religion this is different because the original judgement has no foundation and they still choose it. Also, you can't compare this with something like sexuality, where there is actually no choice."

I like the passion with which you champion your cause but I feel this argument does not really hold up - at least not from my German perspective. There are different kinds of antisemitism but since Anne Frank is tossed around here, let's pick the historically German one. Back in those days, from a Nazi Germany perspective, being Jewish was not a "choice". You were born a jew, it was your race. The decision was therefore made more on the grounds of ethnicity, not religion. It didn't matter if you practised your faith or openly denounced it - it was in your blood. And since this understanding of Jewish people as an "inferior race" is still alive it would be difficult to draw a line here and say that what Omooba does is worse.

Updated On: 3/17/19 at 02:43 PM

David10086 said: "I have a die-hard liberal friend who's in her late 50s, and has been in a committed same-sex relationship for over 10 years. Both women seem very happy, and have a beautiful home together. I've asked her recently - as I would any couple who have been together for as long as they have - if they will ever marry (as many of their friends have), as they live in Boston, MA and MA was the first groundbreaking state toallow same-sex marriage.

Her response was "Never! I can't marry Margo. I'm a Jewish woman first. I can't be in a gay marriage", and further explained how she would be shamed in her Jewish community if anyone knew she was in a lesbian relationship. (And this is Boston!) In other words - everyone knows she and Margo live together, vacation together, do everything together - but so long as they don't 'come out publicly' they're fine. (Margo is from PA, and also Jewish - about ten years her junior). They're accepted as two friends who do everything together - nothing more.I should point out that as far as I know, they do not identify as Orthodox Jews or Hasidic Jews.

On Facebook and social media, they refer to each other as their "BFFs" - not as their wife or partner. Just "BFFs" - yet in private, among their gay friends, they refer to each other as 'wife' and celebrate the day they moved in together (about six months after meeting) as their 'anniversary'.



Just wanted to share this with everyone to point out that although Christianity (and especially the Catholic Church) take the brunt of not accepting homosexuality and gay marriage, there are other religions guilty as well.

As a Jewish woman, I wanted to say that yes, it's a shame that certain sects of my religion have a LONG way to go toward accepting the rights of its LGBTQ practitioners. I do also want to say in many communities, Judaism is incredibly welcoming toward all people, and there are scores of LGBTQ individuals (many LGBTQ Jews of color!) who are rabbis as well. The celebration of intersectionality within Judaism is increasing with time, and I hope to be part of that process. <3


"

AADA81 said: "Of course they realize it comes out of themselves....and their beliefs in what is right.

Religious people and religious beliefs can evolve."

This is what she said:

"I do not believe you can be born gay, and I do not believe homosexuality right, though the law of this land has made it legal does not mean it’s right, Christians we need to step up and love but also tell the truth of God’s word."

So how would you describe "evolve" in this case? Following god's word less?

The thing that specifically annoys me about this situation is that in her original post, she says, "Christians we need to step up and love but also tell the truth of God's word. I am tired of this lukewarm Christianity, be inspired to stand up for what you believe in the truth", which in context is basically saying "Hey everybody, go spread the message of homophobia". Meanwhile, the whole point of the show The Color Purple is to spread the message of acceptance, especially toward the LGBTQ+ community. I hope the producers realize that she is the wrong person to represent the show, and recast the role.

Updated On: 3/17/19 at 09:26 PM

_(•_&bull_/ said: "While this situation is messed up, should atheists be allowed to perform in musicals like Sister act, jesus christ superstar, scandalous? After all they are just beliefs."

This isn't the right analogy at all, as the fact that the actor is straight isn't the issue - it's that she has bigoted opinions about gay people. Similarly, an everyday atheist playing a religious person shouldn't be an issue for anyone, but a virulently anti-religious atheist would raise some eyebrows (think Sam Harris, but not the one who played Joseph).

I have no problem with the choice she makes regarding what she believes. I do not agree with her, but that doesn't mean it would be right to deny her her freedom of thought.

And denying employment based solely on what a person believes is a slippery slope that could be used against anyone; including those whose views one agrees with. As long as she chooses to act tolerably, function within the law, and does not take undo advantage of her role as an opportunity to proselytize - live and let live.

HOWEVER - As others said, I don't understand why she accepted this role, or how her father/family reconcile her accepting a role in the show at all. It seems to be a contradiction of her beliefs (or the ones she tweeted); selling out for "30 pieces of silver", or 'gay for pay', as mentioned earlier. I would like her, and her father's responses regarding those questions.

jimmycurry01 said: "In any case, I wonderif she eats baconor shrimp, or if she wears blended fabrics."

It seems like she'd be willing to do so if she were cast as the lead in a Red Lobster commercial.

jimmycurry01 said: "Kad said: "jimmycurry01 said: "In any case, I wonderif she eats baconor shrimp, or if she wears blended fabrics."

It seems like she'd be willing to do so if she were cast as the lead in a Red Lobster commercial.

"

Alas, the need for a job trumps religious convictions. Perhaps those convictions are not as strong as she would like to believe, or perhaps she has had a change of heart. I suspect the former, but hope for the latter.

I do wonder how her beliefs will factor into her performance."

As Mistah says in the piece, SHE GOT TO GO.

jimmycurry01 said: "In any case, I wonderif she eats baconor shrimp, or if she wears blended fabrics."

It seems like she'd be willing to do so if she were cast as the lead in a Red Lobster commercial.


I've always been skeptical that there's actual *lobster* on offer there, but the blended fabrics seem like a given.

Fetus said: "I wonder if she was genuinely unaware of the LGBT themes in the piece, the film and musical aremore vague onCelie's sexuality which could be missed by someone as ignorant asOmooba appears to be. Someone who locked herself in a room to avoid being seen in a pride video doesn't strike me as one to audition to play a lesbian, but ignorance can often surprise."

I remember seeing the movie in the theater right after it opened. That kiss was pretty shocking for me who as a still closeted young gay man at that point hadn’t really seen any depictions (that I can recall) of same sex attraction. Now it seems pretty tame, but it wasn’t at the time. I don’t think there’s any way this actress didn’t know what she was signing up for.

By the way, whatever controversies and flaws remain with the film, it remains one of my all time favorites.