Christian actress spent 5 years in court defending her right to make anti-LGBTQ+ comments. She just lost.
Christian actress spent 5 years in court defending her right to make anti-LGBTQ+ comments. She just lost.
Why is it always so hard to just leave people alone? How empty is her life that she actually went to court over this, spent money, time, and resources on hate.
BECAUSE SHES BEING VICTIMIZED. /s
Because everyone is more important than anyone else & they all not only deserve to be heard, but if you disagree, you’re the asshole… it’s internal justification for ignorance
Not everyone deserves to be heard. That's ridiculous. Being heard means someone is listening. We don't have sufficient time or ears for everyone to be heard.
I agree that everyone deserves the chance to speak. But not everyone deserves a platform to be heard.
If someone wants to be a bigot, they can go shout about it in their backyard. But don't put the burden of hearing it on the rest of us. Ain't nobody got time for that.
I noticed this with the universe: somehow resources and time find their way into the pockets of those who use it cause harm on somebody else. But for us folks who wanna just put food on the table or pay debt we are always at the verge of drowning.
If you examine the tenets of Christianity and the Bible, spreading homophobic beliefs can be seen as a duty:
Firstly, let's explore why it a Christian responsibility to share God's message. Leviticus 19:16-18 says: "Do not go about spreading slander among your people. Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor's life. I am the LORD." This passage encourages us to be truthful in our communication with others, as well as to avoid causing harm to those around us. By sharing the Biblical perspective on various issues, including sexual morality, they fulfill this commandment.
Additionally, Matthew 28:19-20 emphasizes the importance of spreading the Gospel in all parts of the world: "Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of time." This verse illustrates the mandate from Jesus himself to preach his gospel and instruct new converts in His ways.
Now, when we turn to the subject of homosexuality, there are multiple verses in both Old and New Testaments that categorize homosexual acts as sinful and an abomination. For instance, Leviticus 18:22 declares: "You must not lie down with a man as with a woman; that is detestable." The concept of homosexual behavior being considered an abomination or detestable act appears several times throughout the Bible (e.g., Leviticus 20:13). In Romans 1:24-27, Paul speaks about how certain people exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones, which resulted in God's wrath.
In summary, it is crucial for Christians to spread the Word of God, because the Bible serves as the guide for living a virtuous life. Homosexuality stands out as one of the practices contrary to Biblical teachings, described as an abomination. Therefore, by sharing their beliefs, these Christian individuals aren't merely promoting homophobia but rather, they are adhering to the principles set forth by God in the Bible.
You may not agree, but it's at least consistent with their faith.
I don't mean to be that guy, but I'm not gonna read all that. You replied to me assuming I don't know anything about Christianity, which isn't true. My comment was kind of rhetorical.
I grew up in a household that was Christian, my partners household was catholic, and I've read pretty good chunks of the Bible.
I appreciate the sentiment, but your time is really better spent elsewhere.
You really shouldn't be starring in The Color Purple if you don't understand that discrimination is bad.
Discrimination against ME is bad.
Discrimination against YOU GODLESS HEATHENS is good aktuly.
Besides, something something mumble mumble black liberation had its roots in religious movements something something mumble mumble don't ask what white slavery had its roots in though.
She is absolutely clueless and didn't even read the script before taking the part.
People really need to learn that "freedom of expression" is not the same as free from consequences. Otherwise, defamation wouldn't be a crime, for instance.
This case has nothing to do with freedom of speech. She was suing a private theater on the grounds of religious discrimination which is a law, not a right. She was denied because she wasn't discriminated against based on her religion, but rather was fired because her specific expression impacted her job. She would have been fired no matter what religion she was a part of which is why it wasn't religious discrimination
Thanks for the explanation. The title makes it sound like she was going to jail for anti lgbt comments.
People need to stop being told they have free speech. They do not.
You absolutely do, you just don't have freedom from consequences. Go stand in front of the White House and shout about how being gay is a sin -- this is not a crime. However, don't be surprised if you gather nasty looks or people arguing with you.
We seemingly don't, and that is bad thing. People should be allowed to say whatever they like, or democracy doesn't work. What does it matter if you can vote for whoever you want, if you can't even vocalise an opinion that the majority disagree with? I disagree fundamentally with this woman's opinion, but that doesn't mean she should be banned from saying it - if we disagree with it, we should disincentivise others from believing it by arguing against it, not hiding the opinion.
Right, but a court ruling she can't make those comments seems like violating that whole first amendment thing.
I'd get losing her job, public outcry, the social consequences but it's strange to me to see legal consequences in the form of a court ruling. Thought that was a pretty clear line.
Another Christian religious nut. Get fucked.
on this episode of "My Sincerely Held Belief Takes Precedence Over Everything" we once again attempt to claim that any consequences for my anti-social behavior is a direct attack on myself and my religion.
But my religion says I have to hate people and tell them they're going to Hell.
"All those who have sought to end my career." So entitled.
She refused to play a gay role, but when she was found out she'd signed up for a gay role, she didn't quit, just go all persecuted when she was fired from the gay role that she refused?
My religious dogma says it's good to be a bigot against shitty bigots who target marginalized and minority groups for their hate. It also guarantees salvation at death or triple your money back.
Being homophobic in THEATER, of all places?!?
I'm just surprised to know there is a straight actor in theatre. It's like finding a Shiny Pokémon or something, surely.
They will probably believe they're being discriminated against while being the one who is discriminating against others. Typical flawed world view.
Her comment at the end of the article confirms that she's in deep with the persecution fetish
“but the theatre world needs to be told, loud and clear, that canceling people for their Christian beliefs is illegal and wrong.”
Odd, I don't remember christ demanding the ability to say hateful things to people. But I bailed on the religion over a decade ago, so who knows what new things they've found that Jesus said now.
lol this bitch didn't just get fired from a job for saying homophobic shit...SHE TOOK A ROLE PLAYING A GAY CHARACTER!
She didn't read the script. Found out later she played a gay character. Why didn't she just quit?
Hey she still has the right. Just no job lol.
"Defending her right to make anti-LGBTQ+ comments" is a strange way to frame this by a pro-LGBTQ source. No one here is saying she doesn't have a right to say these things, they're saying she doesn't have a right to stay employed at this job after saying these things and refusing to work with her employer to manage public perception
she's not defending her rights, she's challenging the rights of studios to choose who they work with.
She always had the right to express her ideas... she just didn't have the right to be free from the consequences of doing so. I also enjoy the tension of "I follow everything the Bible says" / "I'm not homophobic"
Before appealing, she should take into account whether she can afford to pay more legal costs if (when) she loses again.
I'm sure that will be the lawyer's first point in the "should we appeal" conversation.
The daily wire and other outlets will eat this shit up and can promote her GoFundMe's unfortunately
How to ruin one’s public image in 10 seconds.
How often does it happen that the people who make such an effort to outwardly project something, is also hiding it.. calling it, she is gay
I can understand that you might not approve of the lifestyle, as some kind of religious person, but why do they have to persecute others.
So I’ll try to explain this from my upbringing which was extremely Christian and conservative, they all need every part of their lives to be a constant affirmation and validation of their faith because reality makes believing it literally really difficult. Gay people especially are a very visible reminder of one of the inconsistencies in the belief system because if God is perfect, all powerful, infinitely merciful, and says he loves us and wants to save us from our sin then how can anyone be born LGBTQ when his book calls them abominations. He can’t make mistakes so he must have wanted them to be abominations, but he loves everyone. This obvious paradox is seen as an attack and persecution, which is something their faith has taught them to expect as a Christian.
I’m happily agree that it’s a lot more complicated than that, but that to me is the heart of the matter and can be extrapolated to many of the other things they want and why they refuse to relent. Because if Christianity is the one correct way to live life anyone living a happy life outside of what it prescribes or can’t be happy within those boundaries is an affront to their faiths foundational principles.
A society doesn't have freedom if I can't insist others can't have freedom! /s
You have the right to be a fucking dumbass. A jobless dumbass.
Just because deities within certain polytheistic religions were rivals, doesn't imply the advent of monotheism.
Youre right, it doesn't.
But just because you assume I've assumed something doesn't make it so.
Polytheism having more explanatory power and being inherently more tolerant is somewhat the consensus on the subject, and I have no need to defend that position to someone I'd have to first lecture for several hours.
That the Viking culture was based on the rape and pillage of Christianity, not exactly a progressive perspective.....
See sentences like that reveal your inherent ignorance. I put quotations around "viking", because that's just how a lot of people view Scandinavian historical culture. And that you don't know that viking is a profession, not an ethnicity, is one of the reasons I'm not debating anything with you.
Yes, the people who went on raids usually did the things that were common for raids.
That's like you saying that robbers rob. Wow.
And saying "their culture was based on rape and pillage" is about as true as racist claims about black people stealing more; amazingly ignorant and inherently racist.
on assuming that Viking in Viking culture women were thought of as equals.....which is doubtful.
So because you're ignorant and assume something, that is how it is? I assume you're capable of using Google, so you chose not to even check. You just asserted that something is "doubtful" when it's not. No historians doubt that gender equality was more advanced in Norse communities than in Christian/Islamic countries of the time.
https://phys.org/news/2019-10-gender-equality-dates-vikings.html
You're not even aware of what Norse society was like, imaging all they did was "raping and pillaging", but you're expecting examples from societies which you probably know even less?
Okay.
"Explain the Mongol Empire"
Lol Did I say polytheism makes one an unconditional pacifist?
But just because you assume I've assumed something doesn't make it so.
You literally claimed that RIVAL gods was evidence of proto monotheism......Making a rebuttal of a claim isn't me making assumptions?
Polytheism having more explanatory power and being inherently more tolerant is somewhat the consensus on the subject, and I have no need to defend that position to someone I'd have to first lecture for several hours.
Lol, nice appeal to authority there? If only there were some way to show that your claims are backed by a larger body of experts or evidence....... Some way to display the source of evidence you stake these claims on......
See sentences like that reveal your inherent ignorance. I put quotations around "viking", because that's just how a lot of people view Scandinavian historical culture. And that you don't know that viking is a profession, not an ethnicity, is one of the reasons I'm not debating anything with you.
Lol, I used quotes when I utilized it as a proper noun. Quotations are not needed when saying Viking culture, the same as if you made a statement about factory culture.
My God, you can't even correctly utilize logical fallacies in your arguments. How about focusing on the actual claim instead of trying to clumsily devolve into pedantic reasoning.
Yes, the people who went on raids usually did the things that were common for raids.
Right ..... And you think rading other societies is considered progressive or tolerant?
And saying "their culture was based on rape and pillage" is about as true as racist claims about black people stealing more; amazingly ignorant and inherently racist.
You need to work on your reading comprehension..... This was a common claim by the same sources that you utilized for your claim about "Viking rape law". So if you are willing to validate your argument on their testimony about "Viking rape laws" then their claims about Viking "barbarism" must be equally valid.
Also..... I thought you said "Vikings" was a job, not an ethnicity?
No historians doubt that gender equality was more advanced in Norse communities than in Christian/Islamic countries of the time.
More advanced does not equate to equals..... and the study you sourced from isn't making any claim based on primary sources. It's just examining the comparative health of women vs men based on skeletal remains. Not exactly anything that gives us a better view of their societal structure.
Again, part of my primary argument is based on the fact that there is not a lot of actual written information from polytheistic societies, especially in the west.
You're not even aware of what Norse society was like, imaging all they did was "raping and pillaging", but you're expecting examples from societies which you probably know even less?
Lol, that wasn't a claim I made. It's a common claim from the source material you based your "Viking rape law argument on".
Did I say polytheism makes one an unconditional pacifist?
No you claimed that polytheistic societies were more tolerant and progressive.
You also defined tolerant as equating to less violent. My rebuttal about the Mongol empire is made to directly confront your definition of tolerance.
And again, you are extrapolating your assumptions about a specific type of European polytheism onto all polytheistic societies. When the vast majority of which we actually have primary source materials are from outside of western hegemony. Stop trying to white wash all of human culture because you're obsessed with Scandinavian history.
You literally claimed that RIVAL gods was evidence of proto monotheism…
You have bad reading comprehension. You brought up ancient Mesopotamia as an example. They may have had several gods, but they were essentially monotheistic in the context that it counts. That IS more or less the birthplace of monotheism. All the ills of monotheism, dogma and a strong hierarchy, are clearly present in ancient Mesopotamian religion, so it's very unlike the polytheism of say Hinduism, Greeks, Romans and the Norse.
"Quotations are not needed when saying Viking culture"
No yeah, definitely, much in the same way as all those extinct big lizards were dinosaurs, right?
It's Scandinavian culture, not "viking culture", lol. This is exactly what I mean. I see no reason to even try to have a chat with you, since you're arrogant while definitely not having earned the right to be, being that ignorant.
can’t even correctly utilize logical fallacies in your arguments
Thanks for another laugh, lol. The irony. chefskiss
This was a common claim by the same sources that you utilized for your claim about “Viking rape law”.
Yeah no, again, even the assumptions you use to think about this are wrong. So utterly, utterly wrong. But seeing as you clearly have the sources for these claims at hand, please, produce them.
Also… I thought you said “Vikings” was a job, not an ethnicity?
I literally said "Norse society", not "viking society". It is a profession, but you're clearly unwilling or unable to understand that, so I used the silly language you insist upon, even after having made myself clear on the proper use of the term. It's how we just have to accept the fact that "literally" is nowadays used as emphasis.
It’s a common claim from the source material you based your “Viking rape law argument on”.
Did I say polytheism makes one an unconditional pacifist? No you claimed that polytheistic societies were more tolerant and progressive. You also defined tolerant as equating to less violent.
See this is why you talking about logical fallacies made me almost choke on laughter. What you're trying to do there is an incredibly pisspoor strawman. You're saying that if a thing Y is likely to make thing X less attribute A, then thing X can not have attribute A at all. Which is, again, hilarious.
Unlike many empire builders, Genghis Khan embraced the diversity of his newly conquered territories. He passed laws declaring religious freedom for all and even granted tax exemptions to places of worship. This tolerance had a political side—the Khan knew that happy subjects were less likely to rebel—but the Mongols also had an exceptionally liberal attitude towards religion. While Genghis and many others subscribed to a shamanistic belief system that revered the spirits of the sky, winds and mountains, the Steppe peoples were a diverse bunch that included Nestorian Christians, Buddhists, Muslims and other animistic traditions.
The Christians went over to the "Holy Land" to literally rape and pillage, because they considered those people there to have the wrong beliefs. Did the Mongol empire kill a lot of people? Yeah, they did. But had he been a dogmatic Christian monotheist, he'd have killed even more.
The only reason Christians got a foothold in Greece, Rome, Norway and Asia was that those societies were tolerant of the new god, not realising that the believers of that new god would eventually hunt and kill them for believing wrong.
"specific type of European polytheism"
Nah, it's pretty global, which you'd know if you had any education on the subject, but you don't.
Hmm, being homophobic and trying to have a career in theater. Thats a bold move, lets see how it pays off.
How can you not even read the script, the book its based on, or even at the least watch the Hollywood movie for a part you're trying to land in an acting performance?
Doesn't look like it turned out well for her.
As someone of color, I wonder if she would agree with the KKK discriminating against her, as they also consider themselves "Christians" spreading hate against people over things they do not control.
Yeap, a lot of slavery in America was perpetuated and validated by religious beliefs. Plantation owners believed that black people were cursed by the mark of ham, and thus were entitled by an act of God to enslave people.
It's simple. They're the wrong kind of Christian, and she's the right kind.
Not just theater but musical theater the absolute stronghold of the LGBTQIA+... Yeah let's just talk openly about how I believe the vast majority of my coworkers and peers (who probably have backgrounds of religious trauma) are morally defunct and how their ability to feel loved and supported shouldn't be considered protected by society!
I want to grab her by the shoulders and say : For fuck sake honey. No one in your field wanting to touch you with a 9 ft pole isn't their fault. Having someone openly homophobic in a role where getting the gold star of casting has been for the past several years meant actually choosing someone who has actual experience in a similar identity to what they are potraying... It would be suicide for a production. People are going to look to a queer character to project themselves in those situations. Knowing you're just a bigot doing it for self agrandizement, accolades and cash is going to cause fucking boycotts from the very target audience of the show!
Spilling your theocratic dirty laundry on twatter because you can't hold it in can be a "career limiting move" and that's just normal in a pluralistic society.
Concrete proof that these people simply don't live in reality.
She thinks this is oppression.
I'm not sure that I agree that a queer character can only be played by a queer actor. That is called acting, the entire idea is to be someone you're not. If wr put that rule, then you can also say that straight characters cannot be played by queer or gay actors, not something we want, I'd say.
That’s what I have trouble understanding - not even reading the script. Apparently she counted on her agents to “filter” things for her. Sounds highly unprofessional.
Definitely failed at basic adulting: "read carefully before signing".
I'm not supporting this dumb bigot at all but isn't that kind of an agent's job?
I laughed so loudly as this comment, my kids came to check in on me.
I've gotten too used to people intentionally misspelling a certain person's name. 'Omooba' threw me for a loop.
It would be beneficial for her to realise long and deep self-reflection is a virtue.
The Daily Caller is always hiring.
More curious how she got hired on those terms. It seems like a simple line reading might have clued everyone involved in on what this story was about.
So you cant cancel people for their christian believe. But apparently you can cancel people for well everything else? Woman is mad.
TBF, the supreme Court has mostly agreed with her in multiple cases.