Tweet
crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
(Editor's Note – Being a gay South Carolinian, I simply must comment briefly on the Joe Wilson controversy. Lgbts around the state are enjoying this. For those who aren't keeping score, that's an adulterous Governor, a possibly gay Lt. Governor, a former chair of the state education board who wrote pornography and a representative who can't control himself when a black president is speaking. You know lgbts enjoy good floor show. If things get any wilder, we may be tempted to start tipping.)
Will this be the face of the anti-ENDA fight? Yes she will be if Peter LaBarbera and the rest of the religious right has their way.
Here is the scoop:
Actress Patricia Mauceri says she was fired and abruptly replaced for objecting to a gay storyline because of her religious beliefs.
Mauceri played the recurring role of Carlotta Vega on “OLTL” for the last 14 years. But when she objected to how the writers wanted her deeply religious character, a Latina mother, to handle a storyline involving homosexuality, she objected. And for that she claims she was fired.
Mauceri, 59, a devout Christian, told FOX News that character Vega's gay-friendly dialogue was not in line with the character she helped create by drawing on her own faith.
“I did not object to being in a gay storyline. I objected to speaking the truth of what that person, how that person would live and breathe and act in that storyline,” she said. “And this goes against everything I am, my belief system, and what I know the character's belief system is aligned to.”
And of course before the entire story has come out, the vultures (i.e. Peter LaBarbera and company) have made Mauceri an example of what could happen if ENDA passes:
Reverse Discrimination? How’s this for a timely story for Labor Day — highlighting the current reality that Christians and traditionalists who oppose homosexuality are more likely to be fired or disciplined for their beliefs than homosexuals are for “being gay.” TAKE ACTION: Call your Congressman and Senators next week (202-224-2131; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org) and urge them to oppose ENDA — the Employment Nondiscrimination Act — which would federalize “sexual orientation” law and greatly expand government power to promote the “gay” agenda. ENDA would become a tool for the Left to use the state to force Christian and moral-minded business owners to promote and subsidize homosexuality and transsexuality against their will.
That's right. According to LaBarbera, forget the fact that you are a hard worker. If your boss finds out that you are an lgbt, then that should be reason enough to fire you.
But I digress. Naturally, LaBarbera is going to milk this situation for all it's worth, even posting a few nasty anti-Mauceri comments from a pro-lgbt blog.
Interestingly enough, it's a blog (Joe. My. God.) that for some reason constantly grinds LaBarbera's gears. He has mentioned the blog a few times this year.
Well since I'm not a psychiatrist, I will not speculate about that.
I personally think that people have sense enough to know that lgbts are not monolithic and a few ugly comments on a blog are not indicative of the entire community in general.
To think that would be the same as thinking that every “deeply religious person” opposes homosexuality. I guess that's what got Mauceri in trouble.
If LaBarbera really wants to read ugly comments, he should read what the folks on Free Republic said about President Obama's daughter Malia.
Really though, seems to me that the details of the story (i.e. the gay storyline) is immaterial. This situation has nothing to do with ENDA. Here we have a soap opera actress who has been reminded that she does not have the juice of a Susan Lucci or Erika Slezak. She is not a writer and she took it upon herself to refuse to play a character as it has been dictated to her by the writers and was penalized for it.
Was it fair? Maybe not. But that's life.
But to exploit the situation in order to justify discrimination against lgbts is wrong. Period.
Related posts:
13 Comments
Here we go!Ahhhhhh….. the smell of fecal matter in the air as another self-righteous uber-religious type tries to portray herself in a new role: martyr.
We see these types all the time: “Oh I was oppressed for defending my racist/sexist/homophobic opinions!”
The minute the christofascists begin to lose jobs en masse, are denied service in restaurants, and evicted for their religious beliefs will I believe they’re being oppressed!
Look, forget gay politics this is total crapMauceri is an actor hired to play a role, and nothing more. She didn’t write the show. She didn’t create her character. Her job is to to read the lines and play the scenes that are given to her.
And nothing more.
Any actor who decided that he or she somehow “owned” the part they were hired to play and balked at the lines they were given to read would be shown the door. That’s exactly what happened here.
And nothing more.
If an actress cannot or will not play a part, she gets let goThat is common in theatre, usually unrelated to politial issues. Writers have thesay on dialogue, not ministers.
He is obsessed with Joe
And, the comments are taken out of context. I was quoted on LaBarbera’s website along with another regular Blender who also visits Joe.My.God.
If you look at the entire thread, you will see that there is an irony and a playful one-upmanship going on that isn’t reflected in Porno Pete’s picking and choosing from dozens of comments.
As often happens here, those commenting at Joe.My.God often write in the voice of the enemy to illustrate how they treat LGBT people.
Take the quote from dwerk:
He was not writing about Mauceri. He was writing about Maggie Gallagher. And he was being deliberately nasty because there has been frequent discussion about her being a regular Joe.My.God reader. He’s being uncommonly provocative and using language that he doesn’t normally use. Regulars know that and therefore don’t get bend out of shape by this seemingly nasty and misogynist language.
Now here’s the real interesting thing…
I have suspected for some time that the person posting as “Dan” on JMG is actually LaBarbera.
Check out the comments posted by “Dan” who also uses the name “Deshawn” in order to sockpuppet as an African-American in the screenshot below (I wish I could embed the graphic):
http://thumbsnap.com/vf/ITfJgP…
You have to read all four comments by “Dan” to see that this is a troll who is using the blog for his own purposes. In the first comment, he is upset that people are saying Randy Thomasson has “gay face” — he is defending Thomasson.
Then, he makes the comment about Mauceri being a c*nt. This is the comment posted on LaBarbera’s website and I strongly suspect that he wrote it himself.
Then, in the third comment he writes “Heterosexuals are sick and can’t be trusted.”
No LGBT person would write that. This is Peter trying to make Joe look bad.
Then, the fourth comment is the one by “Deshawn” that is supposed to be an African-American saying that white people are stupid.
If you recall, PHB had a similar troll named Dan who was banned. I suspect that that was also LaBarbera. I tried to get people to realize that at the time, but I don’t think anyone was convinced.
What do you think now?
Check out the screenshot from JMG. I’m telling you that is Porno Pete trying to invent controversy.
My Idea For Patricia MauceriHere’s what I posted on another blog yesterday – just an idea, but I think it would be hilarious:
Maybe they SHOULD let her give input for the show: let her go ahead and act pissy towards her gay son, let her say what she wants to say – and before the credits roll, inform viewers that her dialogue and actions on the show are of her own doing – NOT what was intended on the script.
If she suggests the gay son go into “ex-gay therapy”, the writers could go WILD with it. The son could be subjected to “touch therapy”, snapping a rubber hand on his hand every time he sees a hot guy, rape from his “ex-gay therapist” and tons of other horrible common real-life things about the “ex-gays” that would make her character AND herself look like total garbage.
PS: I agree – Peter must have the hots for Joe. It must be lonely now that Matt Barber has left him for bigger and better things.
My thoughtsNot that anyone cares but…
For one, there is no such thing as reverse discrimination. The use of that indicate that the individual concerned does not understand the concept of social dynamics.
There is bigotry. There is prejudice. There is discrimination. Reverse discrimination would actually be working in favor of anti-discrimination.
But most of ya’ll know that.
However, it is still quite possible that this individual was, indeed, discriminated against on the basis of religious beliefs.
Possible. Not likely, however, based on the information available to us, and knowledgeable reading of the facts of the matter would show such.
In order to have been fired for her religious beliefs, she would need to establish that her practice of those beliefs was directly contributable to the firing.
In this case, she claims that direct contribution was due to her refusal to perform her duties as a result of her religious beliefs.
So, in this case, we can see that she is using the religious aspect as a pretext, right off the bat.
Because the actual issue is her refusal to do her job. That she refused to do her job is because of religious beliefs is something separate.
Furthermore, she’s likely a contractually obligated player — and served by the union as a result.
Now, if she can establish that the writers or management used their knowledge of her religious beliefs to intentionally place her in a position where she is unable to fulfill the duties of her job as a result of her religious beliefs, she may have a case.
Which would likely fail if any single on of them happens to share her religious beliefs — in this case, if they are catholic, she’ll have a pretty hard time proving that.
Bigotry against the religious is the same thing as bigotry of the religious — it is still bigotry.
And that needs to be remembered at all times.
Having encountered him myself in a sockpuppet formYep, that’s what he does.
Sounds To MeThat Mauceri was/is just being difficult – a diva.
To me, it’s no different than a person getting fired from a Coca-Cola commercial when they’re being hardheaded and drinking Pepsi, and refusing to drink Coke.
Whether you like Coca-Cola or not, you’re being paid to pretend to drink it and pretend that you like it LOL
yep
What has Actress Patricia Mauceri been doing,acting or portraying her real life persona on the show for the past 14 years?
She may need ENDA’s protectionsThere are already laws that protect someone from being fired for their religious beliefs. If she truly thinks she was fired for that reason, she is allowed to take her case to court.
If she thinks she was fired because she is straight, then that is another reason to support ENDA since it would protect her sexual orientation as well as that of gay or bisexual people.
my, what a sense of entitlementLemme see: her free exercise of religion means that she can override the director and also control the script. My, my, she wouldn’t have lasted five minutes with Louis B. Mayer or Darryl F. Zanuck.
I’m still big. It’s the pictures that got small. — Sunset Boulevard
So let me see if I have this “straight”…She doesn’t object to being in a gay storyline, Her only objection is that the story isn’t hateful enough toward gays based on religious convictions.
It’s a soap opera!