Timeline for Can Hollywood discriminate on the race of their actors?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 26, 2021 at 17:43 | comment | added | eps | @gerrit there are restaurants where the main points in going is both to eat and to be served by women in limited clothing. Tilted Kilt is a US/Canada chain that would be a good example. They aren't strip clubs but they aren't exactly an IHOP or whatever either. Or a chain like "medieval times" where servers are dressed as medieval wenches / knights. | |
| Feb 25, 2021 at 17:30 | comment | added | hszmv | @Panzercrisis: Just from personal experience, I went to Catholic school and while I had teachers in various subjects who were not Catholic, religious studies was always taught by those of Catholic Faith for obvious reason. But Math, Science, English, History were generally neutral with respect to one's faith so it didn't have this issue. | |
| Feb 25, 2021 at 17:16 | comment | added | DavePhD | @Panzercrisis this is the case: law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-553 she was a minister, not a lay teacher, for actual school, not Sunday school, but she didn't do anything against the Bible as far as I know, just was unhealthy and perhaps insubordinate. Court said that there is a ministerial exception based upon the first amendment. | |
| Feb 25, 2021 at 17:10 | comment | added | user8913 | I remember a case from something like 2012 where a Sunday School teacher was suddenly found to have some personal issues that went pretty heavily against the Bible. At that point the church dismissed her as being unqualified to retain the position. Again, this is specifically for a church/spiritual position; they may have very well kept her on, if it were just for a normal business or something. However she basically sued, and it went to the US Supreme Court. The end result is that all nine justices unilaterally ruled in favor of the church, at least partially on 1st Amendment grounds. | |
| Feb 25, 2021 at 14:55 | comment | added | DavePhD | @gerrit see chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1997-10-01-9710010254-story.html and foxnews.com/story/… | |
| Feb 25, 2021 at 14:50 | comment | added | hszmv | @Karl: I wouldn't know, but considering that both are common law nations, the precedence of U.S. Case Law can be easily ported to the U.K. The U.S. is also a major producer of international media so I'm sure Hollywood would have lobbied for similar laws for productions filmed in the UK. | |
| Feb 25, 2021 at 14:47 | comment | added | hszmv | @gerrit: The waitresses in Hooters are not strippers, but they do wear very short shorts and tight t-shirts that show off their breasts. | |
| Feb 25, 2021 at 14:46 | comment | added | hszmv | @Hasse1987 Yeah... if the race of the character isn't an issue, it could be argued that actors of any race could play the character... but often a character's race is part of the characterization. | |
| Feb 25, 2021 at 11:34 | comment | added | F Chopin | Does a similar law exist in the UK? | |
| Feb 25, 2021 at 9:22 | comment | added | gerrit | I am surprised that courts go along with a restaurant claiming they are casting waiting staff when their core business is to be a restaurant, not a strip club (I'd expect that BFOQ applies to strip clubs and brothels) that happens to serve food. Or are the waitresses naked too? | |
| Feb 25, 2021 at 6:19 | comment | added | nanoman | -1: Race cannot be a BFOQ. "The special BFOQ exception applies to sex discrimination, but not race." | |
| Feb 25, 2021 at 0:50 | comment | added | Hasse1987 | ? How do you go from "BFOQs exist" to "race of an actor is a BFOQ"? You mean to say, you can make the case that it is, even though a court hasn't decided the matter? Then you shouldn't be saying "This is legal". | |
| Feb 24, 2021 at 23:25 | comment | added | user36764 | @AzorAhai-him- I just noticed all the parentheses after reading your comment haha | |
| Feb 24, 2021 at 17:48 | comment | added | Azor Ahai -him- | Secondly, I suppose it's semantic quibbling, but in this case, the therapist's gender does having a bearing on being an effective therapist for a given patient | |
| Feb 24, 2021 at 17:47 | comment | added | Azor Ahai -him- | If you're double-nesting parentheses it might be time to recast your sentences, haha. | |
| S Feb 24, 2021 at 16:54 | history | suggested | costrom | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Minor grammar and typo fixes
|
| Feb 24, 2021 at 16:22 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Feb 24, 2021 at 16:54 | |||||
| Feb 24, 2021 at 16:02 | comment | added | DavePhD | @hszmv only "religion, sex, or national origin" are in the list of BFOQs, not race or color. law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000e-2 | |
| Feb 24, 2021 at 15:23 | comment | added | hszmv | Same reason... the race of the actor is important enough and would qualify as a BFOQ and the studio would likely argue that. Although I found nothing to support it, an argument of BFOQ sounds like affirmative defense so the actor could sue BUT the defense may flip the burden of proof to force the actor to show that this wasn't a BFOQ for the job. | |
| Feb 24, 2021 at 14:25 | comment | added | Ray Butterworth | This answer has the question backward. It isn't asking whether the race of an actor is a relevant choice; it's asking whether the apparent race is sufficient. If an actor from India looks a lot like MLK, today he would have to be rejected from the part, because political correctness says the actor must actually have African ancestry. The question is, why isn't the rejection of this actor, on the grounds that his ancestors were the wrong race, considered racial discrimination. | |
| Feb 24, 2021 at 13:19 | history | answered | hszmv | CC BY-SA 4.0 |