To me the actual problem with Carano's tweet is not so much the idea of how Nazis slowly brainwashed (a probably already bigoted society) into blaming and then hating jews, which is how it happened -radicalising and already angry society- but to compare that to political views. You can have an argument about politics, but to equate racial an religious persecution with political views is just completely wrong.
Did she deserve to be fired because of it? I don't know, but if her views are so contrary to the company's views, why should they keep her on? Companies like Disney invest a lot of money into their product, and actors are public figures who represent said product. If they become a problem for the image the company is trying to sell through their products it makes no sense to keep them on. Chris Pratt is a conservative as far as I know, but nobody's thinking about firing him, are they?
On the face of it, no, she didn't deserve to be fired, since, reading her comment carefully, she was making a comment, not directly attacking anyone. It wasn't a slur. It was insensitive and way over-the-top, and other things, but imagine any number of people would lose their jobs for the clumsy, insensitive, ridiculous stuff that comes out of their mouths.
So my first question would be, what did her contract say; and what was her level of understanding as to what working for Disney would entail? Was she - or anyone else working for Disney, be told the nanosecond they are hired, that they are now officially a company representative, and here is what you can and can't say in public. Many jobs are specific that way. Evidently detailed filters tho, don't apply to Pascal, or James Gunn, or even LFL staff
(oh, and it was ok for Pratt to just give up on his aging cat over Twitter - bein' an animal lover - well, am not impressed, just sayin', like he couldn't afford to talk to a vet etc. the *&^%$. But I was done after IW and GOTG2 anyway.)
It could be argued that people should just "know" this on the job re representing your job 24/7; but I'd argue that everyone is still struggling with the blurry lines that the immediate access the Internet offers, and the lines between public/private life. Given the woman's background, I'd cut her more slack than I would someone with an Ivy league education, well versed in politics and phony Hollywood speak.
My second question would be, did Disney - with its secrecy and hypercontrolling mania and substantial budget, at any time drag her into the office to have a discussion previously. It could be argued that too bad, lots of jobs where a person (who is a problem) - you get fired as fast as the pink slip can get signed - but this is DISNEY. Supposedly a company that makes millions on the warm and fuzzy. A company who spews out films with female heroines who are "rebellious" and different blah blah. Dealing with an actress who may have rough edges, but apparently really cared about what she was doing. Didn't she at least deserve a 20-minute meeting with an HR rep? - after all, even from an economic standpoint, Disney had already invested quite a lot in Carano.
My last question would be, did Disney even bother to consider the disruption in the REST of the fan base, everyone from the international community to mostly non social media users to the folks quitting D+ at this point. Because, IMO, Disney based its decision on the anonymous remarks (some of which were aggressive) from a group of Twitter users.
IMO Disney has spoken with its interference and poor handling of a situation with one of its top shows - as a consumer, my take-away is that Disney is not targeting its products at me (tho I guessed that from its future MCU lineup
). Also a horribly hypocritical company with poor management, happy to squeeze the life out of its top original projects with micromanaging.
