Actor fired for refusing to do sex scenes

[john doe]

I've enjoyed the acting of this guy for a while, it's good to know he doesn't back down from his values too. From the article: "Neal McDonough is a marvelous actor who elevates every role he plays, whether it's in Band of Brothers or Desperate Housewives......... McDonough was sacked because of his refusal to do some heated love scenes...........The reason? He's a family man and a Catholic, and he's always made it clear that he won't do sex scenes........It has cost him jobs, but the man is sticking to his principles."

Link here:No Sex Please, I’m Neal McDonough… – Deadline.com

[Gretchen]

It's about time someone stood up to Hollywood and refused to do sex scenes. Children are having sex at far younger ages.

I read on CNN once about a middle school in Mane offering birth control to it's students. That is basically saying, "go ahead, there is no consequence for it, your parents will never find out".

Birth control is not totally effective, so what happens when a child gets pregnant even though the school gave her birth control?

[Misshalfway]

Good for him!

[ADoyle90815]

It's great that he's willing to stand up for his beliefs, even if it costs him jobs.

[Bini]

Nice. But who is he? *Goes to read up on him*

[dazed-and-confused]

Miss Halfway read my mind.....thank you, Miss Halfway

[annamaureen]

I've enjoyed him in various shows and I'm glad to read this.

[applepansy]

It was interesting to read the comments on the article. I found it interesting that people felt "pretending" to kill someone was worse than actually getting naked (or near naked) and being intimate on screen.

Its good to know of an actor who openly stands for his values.

[Roseslipper]

i for one am happy that he stood by his value systems....thumbs up....we need more role models or actors like him.

[talisyn]

Good guy. If more Hollywood actors took a stand like this there'd be a lot less for me to not watch

[Misshalfway]

Miss Halfway read my mind.....thank you, Miss Halfway

Well, it was easy reading.

I love you, Dazed. I can tease you, right?

[Moksha]

I've liked this guy on screen.

This poses a real dilemma for the Producer, Director and Writers. I am certain they support religious principles, but they also want to see the script appear on-screen as written.

If I was the Janitor-in-Chief, and I assigned my head janitor to clean the bathrooms, I would expect to see the cleaning carried out. If the head janitor happened to be Muslim or a Brahmin and was unable to touch anything unclean, and so refused to clean the bathroom - what would I do? Sort of a dilemma, because I support religious rights, yet I have a thing for white porcelain. Just because we are talking sex does not change the dilemma.

[pam]

This poses a real dilemma for the Producer, Director and Writers. I am certain they support religious principles, but they also want to see the script appear on-screen as written.

And that is their prerogative. That doesn't mean an actor has to lower his principles at the will of a director, producer or writer. The fact that he risked being fired to stand up for his principles is the issue here.

[Snow]

What a crock.

The hypocrite has no problem starring in tawdry little dramas with themes of murder, cannibalism and soft core porn, and will gladly pretend (act) to make war and to kill other human beings but draws the line at pretending to make love to other other human beings.

Gag.

[Mahone]

And that is their prerogative. That doesn't mean an actor has to lower his principles at the will of a director, producer or writer. The fact that he risked being fired to stand up for his principles is the issue here.

It depends. The only source we have that suggests the producers knew of his current stance on these types of scenes is the author of his article. It doesn't make it true.

Generally when you accept any type of job, you have to sign a contract. If anything at all in that contract that he signed says that he would have to follow the script as written, then he should not have signed it otherwise he'd be in breach of contract. Unfortunately breaching a job contract can mean getting fired, or worse. If the contract mentioned nothing of the sort, then by UK law at least he would be able to take them to court for unfair dismissal - I don't know what the law is like in the USA on this subject.

[pam]

All we have is this article to go by. The article states ABC knew of his stance on this. If that is true they should not have hired him to begin with.

[Mahone]

All we have is this article to go by. The article states ABC knew of his stance on this. If that is true they should not have hired him to begin with.

I would say that was actually up to the employee, not the employer. If an employee turns up to a job interview, it's natural to assume that they are willing to do everything in the job description and contract (especially if they sign it). Even if they were aware of his stance on this, it'd be reasonable to assume his stance had changed as he'd gone for the job in the first place.

In my opinion (and according to UK law) it's unreasonable to fire someone because they refused to do something that they were not asked to do in their contract. I don't know if anyone knows how this law applies in the USA (if at all). If it does apply, and we take everything in the article at face value, then he has a case to sue them (and most likely win).

Edited April 4, 2010 by Mahone

[pam]

I'm not sure that I agree with that totally. If he had made his stance quite clear before signing an agreement and they were aware of it..then the employer is in the wrong. IF and a big IF ABC had made it quite clear that he might have to do love scenes and he signed the contract anyway..that's an entirely different story.

Of course, we don't see the contract so kind of hard to judge either way.

[Dravin]

I agree that it boils down to the agreement, if it mentions something that would include the sex scenes he shouldn't have signed it. If it included a stipulation that he would't have to do sex scenes then ABC is in the wrong.

[Moksha]

In my opinion (and according to UK law) it's unreasonable to fire someone because they refused to do something that they were not asked to do in their contract. I don't know if anyone knows how this law applies in the USA (if at all).

We call it other duties as assigned, and that way the secretaries can still get the coffee (or in the case of Mormons - A glass of Good Wholesome Milk).

[Dravin]

We call it other duties as assigned, and that way the secretaries can still get the coffee (or in the case of Mormons - A glass of Good Wholesome Milk).

Not Postum?

[talisyn]

I'm of two minds on this, and I readily acknowledge my line of thought probably isn't the straightest

One has the ability to not work in a place where one's standards might seem to be compromised. LDS who work at gas stations that sell tobacco products, or even my own place of work where occasionally we have to make beer-battered fries come to mind. Does making or selling such items doom us in the afterlife? I don't know where God would draw the line between that and supporting your family. Working or not working on Sundays is another example. An actor who refuses to do sex scenes is entitled to seek work in other productions.

But, it seems to me that maybe the actor should try a more influential approach. We all know how movies are sometimes wildly different than the original books. Perhaps if he told the producers his thoughts on what would make the same impact but without gratuitous carnality they would tone it down? Yeah I know there are thousands of actors who'd do the scenes with no problem and they could get any of those guys. But the fact is this actor is big enough that not doing a role is newsworthy.