Skip to comments.Soap Actress Says She Was Fired Because of Religious Beliefs
Posted on 09/09/2009 8:13:09 AM PDT by Maelstorm
If you tuned in to the soap "One Life to Live" this week, you may have noticed there's been a change of character. One character in particular.
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."
Mauceri said she was replaced despite offering changes to the script and hoping for a compromise.
An ABC spokesperson said they were not aware of any such claims by Mauceri, adding such claims "would be frivolous."
When asked why Mauceri is no longer playing Carlotta Vega, the spokesperson said the show does not comment on personnel matters. The scene in question was scheduled to air Friday afternoon.
Mauceri told FOX News she is exploring her legal options. AFTRA, the actors union that represents her, did not respond to a request for comment.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I had a friend who worked in Soaps. She said both in NY and LA that the daytime TV industry is like hairdressing or women’s boutiques or male music teachers in public schools..very gay.
"objected to speaking the truth" ??
The Gay MAfia strikes again. Many TV/movie writers are gay—that explains the quality of the shows and sympathetic pro-gay viewpoints often expressed in shows since the mid 1990s.
14 years and no explanation—you are out the door. How professional and caring and tolerant.
God will give her something better.
When you are an actor, you are paid to play a part. If you don’t like your part, become a playwright and write your own lines. Now, while I admire the conviction of this woman for refusing to do something that opposes her faith; whining about it is simply foolish.
You are paid to play a part, so you either play the part - or they will find someone else who will. It’s really that simple.
Come on. let’s be consistent here.
It’s not her show. She’s an employee. If she refuses to do her job, which is to “ACT” then she can be fired or she should quit.
The character that actress played is a devout Catholic who would be going completely against her (the character) beliefs. However, I feel that because the character beliefs mirror those of the actress she is being punished.
As a side note, the replacement actress stinks!
“Blessed are those who are reviled and persecuted for my name’s sake ...”
One would have to assume that the entire male audience and many of the writers of a soap opera would be gay.
>>>You wonder why there are so few Christians in Hollywood?
Moreso I wonder how it is her Christianity had no objection to years of Soap Opera adultery, drug use, scheming, lying, alcoholism, and slammed doors. You sign onto a Soap, you know going in you aren’t there to remake Shirley Temple movies.
This is about on the same level as a football player who argues the Sabbath is a Holy day of rest as an excuse not to work on Sundays.
It's an obvious typo, but I still can't figure out what the exact wording should be.
You come on.
This wasn’t a walk-on or bit player.
She had been on the show for 14 years.
Someone there that long gets to have script input—happens all the time.
It was a small matter, but some toadie wanted to make a point and use her as an example. And I won’t hold my breath waiting for her union to help her out.
If she was gay, there would nonstop coverage of this discriminatory, intolerant act.
She’s an actress. Pay the party given, or quit.
I happen to agree with her about queers, but that is the nature of acting. I suggest she seek a line of work (or place of work) that is not a cesspool.
I also suggest consumers avoid programs with queer plotlines.
They just showed the part (I think she’s talking about) where this character thinks her son is trying to tell here he’s gay....and she’s 1000% accepting of it - telling him that it’s no big deal, laughing and hugging - instead of what I’m sure would happen - disbelief and some kind of discussion to try and understand. It was completely off the wall....the gay line they’re pushing down our throats are two men (one of whom is really gay in real life) - one of whom is a cop and doesn’t want to admit he’s gay. there’s one scene they keep showing over and over, ad nauseum, of them kissing - it’s gross!!! And you’re right, this replacement actress isn’t worth a crap....
Good for her. She will reap her rewards and they will reap their’s.
The character she played was a good Christian mother and quite different from many of the others.
I admire her willingness to fight for here beliefs, but I also respect a company’s right to terminate an employee who doesn’t want to follow orders.
“You are paid to play a part, so you either play the part - or they will find someone else who will. Its really that simple.”
Good point. But her character, too, was deeply religious. Sounds like this actress was standing up for her character and how she should be portrayed. There’s nothing wrong with that. I wonder if an actor would have been fired for speaking up about a non-religious issue in the same way.
In any case, I agree that when you take a job and sign a contract you should do the job or quit. This is what I say about public school teachers as well. They sign a contract - they know what their salaries and working conditions are - they agreed to it, so don’t whine. :)
Sounded like they wanted her character to make a religious stand FOR homosexuality. It was propaganda, pushing an agenda. The rest was typical soap and suds sin.
Here the cast is being asked to celebrate sin and encourage others to do likewise and stop calling it sin.
If an actor is not comfortable with what he/she is being asked to do or say and cannot work it out with the director/producers/writers, his/her only choices are to either compromise and do what was asked, or be willing to be fired.
I don't think acting is a particularly good profession for a Christian, anyway. There are, of course, exceptions, but generally, acting does not lead to happy and holy lives.
About 50 years ago, A.W. Tozer wrote the following about acting, which I find to be very insightful.
“It is not uncommon to find around the theater human flotsam and jetsam washed up by the years, men and women who have played false parts so long that the power to be sincere has forever gone from them. They are doomed to everlasting duplicity. Every act of their lives is faked, every smile is false, every tone of their voice artificial. The curse does not come causeless. It is not by chance that the actor's profession has been notoriously dissolute. Hollywood and Broadway are two sources of corruption which may yet turn America into a Sodom and lay her glory in the dust.
The profession of acting did not originate with the Hebrews. It is not a part of the divine pattern. The Bible mentions it, but never approves it. Drama, as it has come down to us, had its rise in Greece. It was originally a part of the worship of the god Dionysus and was carried on with drunken revelry.”
The so called Hollywood blacklist of communists was a lie. They still got work. They now celebrate the pseudonyms they worked under.
The removal of the names was to prevent the ticket buying public from boycotting studios and films. The staff knew who they were working with.
But the Hollywood blacklist of conservatives means you’ll never work in this town again. Pinklisted.
A lot depends on how her contract reads. I have a feeling she does not have the contractual right to refuse to do certain lines or to demand changes in the script. If I'm right, she likely doesn't have any legal standing.
Like you, I admire her stance. But her legal rights in this situation depend on her contract.
OK she is on a SOAP Opera. WHAT KIND OF F*CKED UP PEOPLE are on and watch these things? Answer me that?
“If she was gay, there would nonstop coverage of this discriminatory, intolerant act.”
And they would be wrong too.
If you want to be WORKING actor, you can’t whine about the script - there are plenty of bartenders willing to step in.
Otherwise produce your own soap.
Good point. Soap operas are full of objectionable material that have nothing to do with homosexuality. Any actress signing on to a soap knows what she is getting into.
I have to disagree with most of you on this. If Christians with morals abandon every field or job, then who’s left to withstand this tide of evil in our society?
Christians don’t have to compromise their beliefs. We shouldn’t have to abandon every area of society and allow it to further slide down the sewer.
You would think her Christian beliefs would have given her pause beforing signing on to do a Soap in the first place.
Apparently she’s fine being on a show that promotes pre-marital sex, adulturous sex, etc. You know, as long as her character doesn’t have to do it.
And just now, after 14 years, she’s finally upset about the direction of the show?? Come on....
“I have to disagree with most of you on this. If Christians with morals abandon every field or job, then whos left to withstand this tide of evil in our society?”
Christian viewers have more control than this actress. If “Christians” or any other moral person is so disgusted by Hollywood or soaps - stop watching. These shows exist because people watch them, not because actors compromise their beliefs.
Hollywood loves to trot out the “witch hunts” and make it sound as if they suffered. It seems to me that the ones who suffered were those who cooperated with the government. But that’s just my opinion - I wasn’t there, didn’t live through it, don’t know.
What are the pseudonyms they worked under? Do you mean the actos themselves just took pseudonyms and passed themselves off as different people?
I wonder how much longer Hollywood and the entire acting community can exist as is. Their hypocrisy is astonishing and in difficult financial times, the rest of the country is bound to notice the lavish lifestyles and self-indulgence. But maybe not.
She has to sue, just like Carrie Prejean is doing.
She’s a great actress, and a pivotal character on the show. She is right about Carlotta’s character. Carlotta would betray her obvious Catholicism by going along with the plot line.
Mauceri definitely has a case for religious discrimination.
The other actors who have been on the show for 14 years should join in a boycott.
The show has several openly gay characters now, and there are regular scenes of men embracing, kissing, and undressing with each other. One of the gay guys is a cop, who is also sleeping with a woman. I guess soap opera people don’t get AIDS or STDs.
This is daytime TV!
If she was "standing up for her character" then this is about "creative differences," not religious discrimination.
Many actors are asked to play characters who do things the actor or actress would not dream of doing. Otherwise, no one would play the killer in a mystery, no one would play Hitler in WW II movies, no would play Stalin. She's paid to follow the scripts provided. If she doesn't want to do that, she should find a different acting job where she can agree, or she should change careers.
I wonder if an actor would have been fired for speaking up about a non-religious issue in the same way.
For speaking up, probably not. For refusing to play the part after she lost the argument, yes. Her employers may be misguided, stupid, artistically wrong, have a despicable agenda, etc. - but she signed a contract and can't expect to be retained if she refuses to adhere to the contract.
I know there is religious discrimination, but this isn't it.
I read it 3 or 4 times, too, Shadow...thinking maybe they just omitted the 'NOT'...
Largely the blacklist was screenwriters. People who put the words and messages into the mouths of the actors and actresses.
And today’s Hollywood Reds sat on their hands when Elia Kazan got a lifetime achievement award because “he talked”.
Dalton Trumbo for example was among the US Communists who protested the US siding with England against Nazi Germany because the Reds were A-OK with Fascism until Hitler betrayed their beloved Stalin.
It’s all about where your loyalties lie.
“Christians dont have to compromise their beliefs. We shouldnt have to abandon every area of society and allow it to further slide down the sewer.”
I completely agree. But in this case the soap opera fired her, so she didn’t have a choice. She must have known what she was risking but she took a stand anyway. We don’t know who was watching that and how her actions impacted others. It might have been a very powerful witness on her part.
Look, THEY are in control. We all experience it in our daily lives. Social connections, our livelihoods, these can all easily be irreparably damaged by saying a single wrong word.
Even an individual like this actress must hide her non-conforming hypothetical ideas. We are well into the dark times, we just don’t know it yet.
Wait a minute...Mauceri has built this character line by line, day by day for fourteen years.
These Hispanic characters were introduced to draw that population demographic to the show.
Mauceri excelled in being the “wise Latina woman” of great moral depth and compassion.
The character would not be the same without the actress.
Mauceri , IMO, has a great investment in the success of the program. And the producers owe her a debt of loyalty for expanding the popularity of the show.
ABC will lose even more fans now than they did when the “in-your-face” Gay Cops Gone Wild plot began.
Mauceri, 59, a devout Christian
Well then, she should probably not have taken a job on an MSM soap opera. There has to be something in the story line that offends traditional Christian beliefs at least once every other day.
Let’s start the phone calling and letter writing- some tel #s and addresses please!
“I know there is religious discrimination, but this isn’t it.”
I agree with most of what you’ve said, but I’m not convinced that there isn’t religious discrimination here. If this actress was treated differently from others, I think the case could be made that this was due to her religious orientation. If, for example, the soap opera person (director?) insisted on portraying this particular character in a way that would be offensive to the actress - and this was atypical behavior, then I think the case can be made. I also think it would be very hard to establish that.
Drama draws from life, and there's nothing wrong with taking part in art that portrays man as sinful. He is. Your message as you do so, however, is crucial. For instance, on soaps, no one endorses drunkenness and adultery per se. These things happen, they're often considered understandable or forgivable if the character is likable or good-looking, but they're considered bad in themselvesespecially if they're not working to your personal benefit.
This bit of ideological enforcement on the show concerning sodomy is special, because it sounds as if this devout Roman Catholic character is supposed to wind up accepting, endorsing, and encouraging homosexual sodomy. Promoting a sin is sinful in itselfespecially in a serious matter. Remember Matthew 18:6: "[H]e that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea."
Now consider that the Church teaches that homosexuality is one of the "Four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance." The other three are willful murder, depriving the workman of his just wages, and oppressing the poor. Promoting homosexuality (as opposed to acknowledging its existence or portraying it) is deadly stuff.
I'm not saying this is a First Amendment issue. But it definitely could be a union issue, and she's right to give the show a black eye over it. More power to her.
Bravo! You said it so much better than I did.
Elia Kazan is the one I was thinking of. I believe he suffered greatly because of his cooperation. This “tolerance” door definitely doesn’t swing both ways.
And I find it very interesting that there was a great deal of sympathy for Hitler and crew during that time. If Americans knew the slightest bit of history - even recent history - they might be able to understand a little bit of what’s happening right in front of them.
“Mauceri excelled in being the wise Latina woman of great moral depth and compassion.”
We’re still talking about a Soap Opera , correct?
Denzel Washington is a devout Christian, yet did you see the things his character did in Training Day? Mel Gibson was pretty devout, yet not long prior to The Passion of the Christ he was playing a criminal in Payback.
The characters an actor creates are as much a product of his or her labors as those of the writers, and certainly more than those of the network producers. That’s why series that replace a known actor with another in the same role rarely succeed. So this actress “owns” this character as much as some PC bean-counter does. And if she has principled objections to a script, the powers that be would be well advised, though not legally obligated, to heed her input.
It might well be a terrible decisions by the producers, both artistically (if that word can be applied to a soap opera) and commercially, but they had every right to make that choice.
Writers, producers and directors decide what the characters say, the actor’s job is to say what is in the script.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.