http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,546720,00.html??test=faces

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.

Wow--it appears that all that NB reported was absolutely correct in this instance...from the religious beliefs to the offer to rescript dialogue.

Wow--it appears that all that NB reported was absolutely correct in this instance...from the religious beliefs to the offer to rescript dialogue.

Except nowhere does she say she refused to play the role as scripted. She simply voiced her objection that Carlotta, a character she created over the last 14 years would not respond the way it was written.

Edited September 4, 200916 yr by rhinohide

Cry me a river. This is how typical employer/employee relationships go: You're hired to do a specific job. You refuse to do it. You're fired! End of story.

She refused to do the work. She wasn't fired for her personal beliefs. Call yourself a Christian yet live by the Old Testament all you want. Let everyone at your job know it. It's your business. It's your right! But if you tell your boss that you refuse to do your work for which you've been hired because of those beliefs, then you're outta there!

They fired her for that

I've seen many actors object to things like "my character wouldn't say or do this" and things like that

Sounds like ABC was looking for any excuse to get rid of her

Edited September 4, 200916 yr by Zendall Fan

Except nowhere does she say she refused to play the role as scripted. She simply voiced her objection that Carlotta, a character she created over the last 14 years would not respond the way it was written.

Then what does "despite offering changes to the script" mean to you? If you're not refusing to play it as scripted, why would you offer changes to the script? That's more than voicing an objection.

Well many people have stayed in a role when their characters have done something out of character. This isn't brand new and they simply went along with it and did their job. I think she should have played along and did her job, if she wanted to keep it.

Sorry I don't agree with that mentality. I think actors should speak out when they KNOW it's something their character wouldn't do(or say)

No one knows the characters than the actors playing them-not even the writers

I've never understood why being tolerant of her gay son would be out of character for Carlotta. I've never seen or heard Carlotta mention gay issues.

That's a crock.

PM never had a problem with Carlotta being a cafeteria Catholic when it came to her character cheerleading Cris and Antonio fornicating without the benefit of marriage.

Sorry I don't agree with that mentality. I think actors should speak out when they KNOW it's something their character wouldn't do(or say)

No one knows the characters than the actors playing them-not even the writers

Actors are paid to act, period. They may voice their opinons about what they think their character might or might not do or say, but ultimately, they have to speak the words as written. That's their job.

If she refused to play the scene as written, they had every right to "fire" her. (I put "fire" in quotes, because technically, she wasn't even on contract. She was a recurring player who was used and paid as needed. In other words, unlike contract players, she could've turned it down when they called her).

Actors are paid to act, period. They may voice their opinons about what they think their character might or might not do or say, but ultimately, they have to speak the words as written. That's their job..

Yeah they are paid to act, but they have every right to voice their opinion if they know it's something their character isn't going to do.

I remember a few years ago reading about Michael E. Knight from AMC going to the producers and being FURIOUS about something that was written that he knew his character would never do. David Canary objected to Adam leaving a pregnant Krystal alone and in labor on the floor and they changed it slightly.

I don't see why they couldn't change one stupid line. It's not like it would have harmed the show.

Edited September 4, 200916 yr by Zendall Fan

PM never had a problem with Carlotta being a cafeteria Catholic when it came to her character cheerleading Cris and Antonio fornicating without the benefit of marriage.

LOD!

Yeah they are paid to act, but they have every right to voice their opinion if they know it's something their character isn't going to do.

I remember a few years ago reading about Michael E. Knight from AMC going to the producers and being FURIOUS about something that was written that he knew his character would never do. David Canary objected to Adam leaving a pregnant Krystal alone and in labor on the floor and they changed it slightly.

I don't see why they couldn't change one stupid line. It's not like it would have harmed the show.

Louise Sorel and Victoria Rowell did it, too. But they were legendary stars who had power they could leverage. Was PM even on contract?

Yeah they are paid to act, but they have every right to voice their opinion if they know it's something their character isn't going to do.

I remember a few years ago reading about Michael E. Knight from AMC going to the producers and being FURIOUS about something that was written that he knew his character would never do. David Canary has done it.

I don't see why they couldn't change one stupid line. It's not like it would have harmed the show.

They wrote the scene how they wanted it. And she was free to object, but when TPTB said that they weren't changing the scene, she was obligated to play it as written.

And frankly...characters are re-written all the time in daytime. NO CHARACTER on any show can be said to be completely consistent through various writers.

I actually think the actors who protest too much about how they're character would act/what they'd say (having a tantrum/screamfest rather than just voicing an opinion) are just a little too involved in their jobs. I always admired Robin Christopher because she always gave it her all, even if her character was doing something that I thought was "out of character" (like when Skye kept Alexis's baby from her). In other words, she didn't take her job home with her.

Too many actors on daytime live vicariously through their characters, and aren't happy unless they can basically write their own story.