I picked other...he should have known that the creative/artistic fields and gay people go hand in hand. Should have been more secretive with that donation if he didn't want to piss people off.

Wow..how can he be that stupid! Really ? Why donated in that manner. I think he's pissed people off big time and yes this is the right to do by resigning. He should have known better now everyone knows he is backward!

He absolutely should´ve resigned giving the nature of his position. And quite frankly, I don´t think he participated in democracy. Voting whether or not to take away equal civil rights from a portion of the population is not democracy, its not something that should´ve never been put to a vote in this manner. Just as citizens shouldnt be able to vote to stop marriage between different races or to put at end to integration in schools.

ugh my post is riddled with typos. sorry guys. need coffee.

I'm completely against Prop 8 AND witch-hunts. Having that position, it seems incongruous that he had those ideas but, if they did not hinder his performance, his behaviour towards gays or hiring staff, then he shouldn't have to step down.

Besides, that list giving names is just wrong. Work to educate those people and try to change their minds, not ridicule them and accuse them and sabotage them. I don't see how that behaviour is going to bring any good.

How is that list compiled, anyway? If I wanted to smear someone's name could I donate in their names? I don't like that at all.

Why shouldn't he be entitled to his opinion? He shouldn't have to resign for supporting a proposition that most other people in California supported also.
I seriously wonder how you YES voters would have felt if this story were about someone who voted No on Prop 8 being bullied into quitting their job. I don't agree with Prop 8, but it's just absolutely crazy that he should lose something he LOVES just because he feels differently than I do. It's even crazier that evidently so many of you see no problem with it at all.

Wow, he definetly shouldnt have resigned but I understand why he did (reason Jessie gave)! Even though many people dont agree with Yes on Prop 8 he is entitled to his opinion. In my opinion that website is a horrible idea. Stand up for what you believe in and we'll find you..for whatever reason. Not cool.

EM who exactly is that guy in your avi? LOL...the grown up smurf is going to give me nightmares

This is a tricky situation. I don't think he should have HAD to resign. At the same time being a musical theater actor myself I can tell you that the majority of men that work in it are gay and not by a small amount. I would say in my community it's probably about 80%. This is an estimate of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was very close to accurate. Anyway, of course this could lend to extremely strained working conditions and also the gay demographic is also one of the largest groups that SUPPORT musical theater also. No matter what you personally feel about this, most gay people feel as if they're civil rights were stripped away. So, I do feel like it made business sense for him to resign.

to add to what harmony said, My understanding is that Mark Shaiman the composer of Hairspray was extremely angry when he found out about this because he had granted Scott one of Hairspray's few regional theater licenses. He went so far to tell him he will never give him any more work because of this and he didnt understand how Scott could work so closely with the gay community and still support this..it is tricky, i dont think he shouldve had to resign but from a business standpoint it makes a bit of sense since I dont think Shaiman wwas the only one that was angry and was going to deny him any work

Em, I have to disagree with you on something. This is democracy in action. A democracy is when, right or wrong, majority rules. And it's a dangerous thing. That's one of the reasons we don't live in a direct democracy. Let's just hope the courts do their job on this one.

It's silly it's even going to the courts. The people have spoken. Get over it!

YOU get over it. Just as it is the people's right to vote on these topics it is also the people's right to contest those decisions.

I actually think this guy was dumb for publically donating money. He should have been more careful. Voting is one thing- no one can or should be able to know which side you voted on. I don't deny his right to vote however he wishes because that is how democracy works, but I do feel he is right to step down because it was a stupid move. Do you want someone this careless to be a director?

Heh, I am over it. It's a constitutional amendment now in CA. I guess that's not enough for some.

Beavis if people passionately believe something is very wrong they have every right to NOT get over it and it would be absolutely frightening if they blindly went along with a vote and DIDN'T voice their beliefs. This country is about being able to speak-up when something is wrong. Imagine how backwards we would be if people didn't push for change.

And to clarify I'm not saying he should have had to resign "in theory," but in the practical sense if he wasn't going to make a better effort to conceal his opinions, it was to be expected. As much as he is entitled to his "opinions" his coworkers are entitled to react negatively.

It won't be for long.

People in business always run the risk of backlash when they take positions on controversial issues. How many times have fundamentalist churches boycotted businesses because of their stances? (Disney, anyone?) One could argue that turnabout is fair play. One could also argue that people are free to "vote with their feet" and "vote with their wallets" if they feel strongly about an issue. If you are in a business that relies on gays both as workers and customers, then you are very foolish to take a position that antagonizes them.

Exactly Jessie. It's the same as certain religious groups boycotting places that they think promote the homosexual lifestyle. If they have the right to do that, then gay people have the right to boycott as they see fit.

Stupid is trying to circumvent the constitution. Stupid is not respecting the vote on a constitutional amendment. Stupid is trying to get the courts to settle an issue for you on which the people voted and agreed. If it's a problem, organize and vote again at the next election.

NOPE. That's not how these battles have been won. These battles are won in the courtroom before public opinion has evolved to support them. The government takes the lead and waits for it's republic to catch up and get over themselves.

Hahahaha, wow what country do you live in? I guess if that's how you want America to be to fit your own shallow interests, then fine. You are the product of our failing liberal run government education system.

I didn't read anywhere in there that he HAD to resign..sounds like it was his choice to do so.

WOW

I am still left wondering how yes voters would have felt if a man who voted against Prop 8 were bullied into leaving his, let's say, firefighting job.
(Naturally, that's not to say that all, or even most, firefighters would be cruel enough to oust someone like that, but this is simply for the sake of argument)

I love it "respect our choices" .. to..."you made the wrong choice and your going to pay!"

where does the hypocrisy start and stop?

Also?

" It's even crazier that evidently so many of you see no problem with it at all."

When I 'voted' on the poll above, it looked pretty evenly split to me on the yes/no vote, unless you think 25 vs 23 is a huge difference.

The AntiGayBlackList is just as bad as the people who are homophobic right or wrong everyone is entitled to their own opinion. To in turn "black list" a group that doesn't agree with you getting married and "run" people out of their jobs is equally as bad! However I find it hilarious that someone who works in musical theater has stance that many people consider homophobic in a career that tends to have a high demographic of homosexual employees, I mean it almost made me laugh!

GROUNDBREAKING CIVIL RIGHTS BATTLES FOUGHT IN THE SUPREME COURT

* Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)
This decision held that "racially restrictive covenants" in property deeds are unenforceable. In this case, the "covenants" were terms or obligations in property deeds that limited property rights to Caucasians, excluding members of other races.

* Brown v. Board of Education (1954) | Case Background (from U.S. Courts)
In this landmark case, the Court prohibited racial segregation of public schools.

* Brown v. Board of Education II (1955)
This decision quickened the process for implementing the anti-segregation orders issued in "Brown I."

* Bailey v. Patterson (1962)
The Court in this case prohibited racial segregation of interstate and intrastate transportation facilities.

* Loving v. Virginia (1967)
This decision holds that state laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage are unconstitutional.

* Jones v. Mayer Co. (1968)
The Court held in this case that federal law bars all racial discrimination (private or public), in sale or rental of property.

* Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971)
In this case, the Court decided that certain education requirements and intelligence tests used as conditions of employment acted to exclude African-American job applicants, did not relate to job performance, and were prohibited.

* Roe v. Wade (1973)
In this landmark case, the Court decided that a woman's right to abortion is part of the constitutional right to privacy.

* Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. LaFleur (1974)
Found that Ohio public school mandatory maternity leave rules for pregnant teachers violate constitutional guarantees of due process.

* Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986)
Found that a claim of "hostile environment" sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that may be brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

* Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc. (1987)
In this case, the Court held that sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment can form the basis for a valid claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

* Romer v. Evans (1996)
In this case, the Court finds that an amendment to Colorado's constitution, which sought to preclude legal protection of homosexuals' rights, is unconstitutional.

* Bragdon v. Abbott (1998)
The Court holds that HIV infection qualifies as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

* Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
The Court holds that a Texas statute criminalizing same-sex conduct is unconstitutional.

But foxie, it doesn't say anywhere that he was BULLIED at all into quitting...all this post and the linked article mention was that gay artists boycotted the theatre.

I'm not sure I'm understanding your grievance with my comment, em. 25 people finding no problem with this IS many people, in my eyes.

Angela- He's obviously sad about leaving a job that he really loves and feels passionate about. You honestly don't think this is because of bullying? Come on.

this anti-gay blacklist site is crazy. it is not complete... i heard 80 million was spent overall? or was that on both sides? anyway, just scanned it to see if anyone i know/work with was on the list. no. whew.

I agree with Harmony on this one, but you also have to consider her statement--

"At the same time being a musical theater actor myself I can tell you that the majority of men that work in it are gay and not by a small amount. I would say in my community it's probably about 80%. This is an estimate of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was very close to accurate. Anyway, of course this could lend to extremely strained working conditions and also the gay demographic is also one of the largest groups that SUPPORT musical theater also."

So taking the context of his job into consideration, she has really good points. Also, it still seems to me like he wasn't forced to resign. Hell, a prof at my university denies the Holocaust took place, and we have a pretty active Jewish community on campus--he hasn't been forced to resign, and given the fact that he actually denies a historical event like the Holocaust while having to teach Jewish students...he can't be all THAT comfortable doing that, IMO.

Thank you Harmony and in may of those decisions up to 80% of the country were against.

Posting a list of court decisions where the courts legislated from the bench doesn't prove you right. The spirit of the Constitution, the 10th Amendment, they all existed well before judges decided they want to trump the legislativ and executive branches of government as well as the will of the people.

foxie, if you think 25 people is a lot of people, then 23 people is also a lot of people. It's not a "grievance", IMO, but it's evenly split. There are people who think yes, and people who think no. That's all.

Foxie are you trying to say people don't have the right to boycott?

Well when it comes to financial backers pulling out and audience members being turned off and artistic members boycotting in this number it made business sense. It's hard enough to even break even in theater let alone make a profit. This hits them where it hurts...the pocketbook...especially in this economic time. This sort of thing could have completely sunk this theater. He knew his name was going to be published. He could have donated one less dollar and stayed anonymous and not wrapped his theater company in his own political belief.

"I didn't read anywhere in there that he HAD to resign..sounds like it was his choice to do so."

Of course it didn't say he had to resign, but if you look at the history of black listing he was put in a position that would have been so uncomfortable for him that he probably would have been able to be fired for just cause. i.e. people not willing to work for him, or work with him would cause him not to be able to do an adequate job. Secondly the blacklist it self is a scare tactic and one that a group of people who have great prejudices against them well the should be ashamed to stoop to that level. Just because your opponent is slinging mud doesn't mean you have too!

And be careful what you wish for. If you allow the courts to decide gay marriage, you might get it outlawed in every state, not just yours. The 10th Amendment is your friend.

Also, maybe he did leave the job because, as Harmony stated, it makes good business sense. Maybe he didn't want to see the theatre go under and lose financial support because of his personal views about gays.

So Beavis is that your round about way of saying that we should have listened to the people and kept our schools and communities segregated and not granted the right to property, marriage, etc. to African Americans. That the people in fact were right in their prejudice. I mean if you want to take that stance I'm all for it. You're only digging yourself into a hole.

Harmony you state my beliefs much better

Em- I don't think you're clearly reading what I wrote. I didn't say "so many more of you" or "most of you." I never said it wasn't evenly split, just that it's crazy to me that people would be voting yes.

Jessie- Good God. I really don't see how you deducted that conclusion. Obviously I think people have the right to boycott. People have the right to boycott Yes/Prop8 voters, but I think it's silly. They should carry on with their lawsuit, not bully people who were given an issue to vote on, right or wrong, and voted with their hearts. I just think it's wrong that this man should resign from a career he loves.

So you're saying that those decisions were bad ones? You're saying that we should still have racial segregation and different standards for men and women...and that gays should not only not be allowed to marry, but should be discriminated in the work place just because the general public wasn't ready for it yet. SAD.

Just because people have the right to do something doesn't mean it's RIGHT that they do it. I understand how you all, MYSELF INCLUDED, feel about Prop 8, but it's WRONG to blacklist and bully people who disagree. End of story!

"all this post and the linked article mention was that gay artists boycotted the theatre."

Boycotting a theater causes people who pay money for tickets to turn away i.e. loss in profits secondly when Gay Artist are the bulk of your employees well that hurts your headcount and hurts the product you put out. So although he wasn't carted out or fired he was put in a position that was financially and personally sticky it was easier for him to resign and at the end of the day I'm sure he cared about the theater and him staying would have hurt it.

I just don't believe that a simple ballot proposition should have the power to literally "REMOVE THE RIGHT" of citizens. The prop's language was specifically to remove a right that existed in our Constitution. It just seems a perverted form of justice to allow citizens to modify rights so frivolously.

I feel that he has every right to vote how he would like, but people also have the right to boycott businesses. That is democracy in action too!

As someone who works in theater, I am pretty amazed that he has this position.