SAN FRANCISCO (KPIX 5) — A famed actress is facing backlash in San Francisco’s Latino community, after she voiced support for a conservative candidate for California governor.
I don’t know why actors try to use their fame to push their political beliefs…the Hollywood right does it and then complains when there is backlash.
The political views an artist expresses should not be used to punish them. Politics is politics and art is art, and the latter should be judged on its own merits, particularly in a so-called free society.
Quite often, art is used for political reasons. If the Hispanic group was making a political statement in their art, they may have believed this actress was undermining their efforts. There’s a reason why the UAW doesn’t allow their members to buy cars that are not manufactured by Ford, GM, or Chrysler. It undermines their jobs, and thus, their union. Members of the broadcast media are often not allowed to explicitly endorse a political candidate, as it would infringe on their supposed neutrality, and the station could lose viewers who don’t agree with that person.
If the Hispanic group believed that this woman’s support of the TEA Party candidate undermined their mission, then they could let her go.
Yes, art CAN be a medium used to voice a political message, but in this instance the actress was not making an anti-immigration political statement in performing a Spanish version of “The Vagina Monologues”! She was acting in a theater production, or whatever this is. What does her performance here have to do with her political stance on immigration or which candidate she supports for governor?
In general, I agree with you. However, I wonder if the subject matters makes a difference. The actress would have been appearing in The Vagina Monologues, a play which appeals to a decidedly non-conservative audience. I have not seen the play, but I suspect that it presents a viewpoint which is does not fit well with conservative politics.
I agree with this actually. If your job is unrelated to your political or religious beliefs, you shouldn’t be fired over them. But if your job IS related to your political or religious beliefs, and you state beliefs contrary to your job, then I see no qualms in you being fired over them.
This is the exact same scenario as if the program director of a CCD program came out and announced they were completely fine with gay “marriage” and thought the Church should bless the “marriages.” In that case, much like this case, they’d be immediately fired or asked to resign first.
The reason I equate the two is because it is completely irrelevant if the personal beliefs of either person actually were stated during the course of their job. If that program director taught CCD correctly, but was well-known for having beliefs opposite to the Church, they would still be asked to resign. This actress would not have been teaching conservative immigration on stage, but her well-known immigration beliefs justify her being removed from the cast of a program intended for a target audience who vehemently disagree with her.
Didn’t she resign from the production because she was harassed for supporting a Tea Party candidate who was against illegal immigration? I thought it was her affiliation with the Tea Party that some Hispanics were not comfortable with, and not the play she was performing in.
In the present case, the actress’ job was NOT related to her political beliefs. She had to resign from the play because some did not approve of her politics.
It wasn’t “some.” It was almost the entire intended audience that vehemently disagreed. It would be like a person running around promoting the forcible removal of guns from households by the government and thinking it wouldn’t affect their ability to star in a big production aimed at conservative ticketholders in Texas. I guarantee you that person would be thrown out just as quick. No one wants to risk having their show go bankrupt, because one of their actors couldn’t keep their mouth shut on a political level.
There’s also a difference between believing something (private information) and actively going around promoting it (a public action which will have consequences, no matter what your beliefs). If I had a child, I would tell them that they should never publicly reveal their beliefs unless they need to, their work involves them, or they are evangelizing in some manner (including pro-life protests).
On a practical and business level, in which ticket sales and money are the bottom line, you are correct. But the larger issue as I see it is whether artists (and others) SHOULD be penalized by losing their job due to their political beliefs? I think not. Not only is this unfair to the individual and irrelevant with respect to their talent, but it sets a dangerous and regressive, McCarthy-like criterion within our free society, in which an artist refrains from exercising their right to air their political views and participate in the democratic process for fear of being economically ostracized by doing so.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but from a business standpoint, any time you are looking at massive boycotts, whether conservative or liberal in nature, you have to consider the fact that you’re looking at starving your entire cast’s families if the show goes bankrupt. So your choices are to cut the one person who made the mistake and feed the rest of their families or stand up for some abstract principle that ends up with the whole cast going bankrupt. Honestly, unless the public beliefs spoken were Catholic in nature, I see no reason why I wouldn’t explain to the person that actions have consequences, and that I couldn’t starve my cast just to fight for some supposed “right” of theirs to have no consequences from public speech, no matter what it is they say.
We have free speech in that you can’t be jailed for what you say (except for a few exceptions, like fire-in-theatre), but that does not extend to you not having CONSEQUENCES for what you say.
If you make an exception for public beliefs that are Catholic, then you must also make exceptions for other public religious beliefs, as well as political beliefs. This is not merely an abstract principle that itself has no repercussions, as the McCarthy era has already demonstrated. What is applicable to religious liberty for all is also applicable to political liberty, whether it be liberal or conservative.
“Tolerance” is anathema to a liberal cesspool like San Francisco.
They endorse one and only type of tolerance; their own version.
Liberal fascism is nothing new.
I wonder if this play or this theater or theater group gets federal funding through the National Endowment for the Arts? If they do, what are the implications of such blatant political activities?
Strongly disagree. With artist such as actors and musicians, their livelihood and art is strictly based off the publics perception of them. Which is entirely entangled with their political views, if they choose to express them.
I suppose I’m from an older generation when people were interested in performers who were good, and even if we knew about their politics and didn’t agree, we thought their talent was the most important thing.
That may be the case when starting out at times, for some - not all. Unfortunately, our mass media and pop culture rewards an artist persona more so than their art. That may not be ideal, but I think you’d be hard pressed to argue that isn’t the case now.
I liked the commercial. :shrug: But I don’t think Donnelly has a chance.
Maria Conchita Alonso being interviewed about the lost job: