The Hollywood Reporter’s recent article on Justin Baldoni attempts to reframe serious harassment allegations as mere “cultural misunderstandings” stemming from his Baha’i faith. This framing is both misleading and harmful to workplace safety standards.

First, the article’s central premise—that Baldoni’s religious beliefs might explain inappropriate workplace behavior—is deeply problematic. By suggesting a “clash between a very specific faith-driven community with its unique mores, and a much more modern, post-#MeToo one,” THR trivializes harassment claims as simply a matter of cultural difference rather than unacceptable professional conduct. This framing insults both the Baha’i faith (which explicitly supports gender equality) and victims of workplace harassment.

The article characterizes today’s workplace standards as having become “far more rigid, uniform and policed” after #MeToo—as if basic protections against harassment represent excessive restrictions rather than minimal safeguards. This perspective reveals a troubling nostalgia for times when inappropriate behavior could be dismissed without consequence.

Blake Lively’s allegations—including Baldoni describing his genitals, making sexual comments, discussing porn addiction, showing explicit content, claiming to speak with her dead father, and pressuring her about religious beliefs—aren’t mere cultural misunderstandings. They represent serious boundary violations in any professional context.

The article attempts to minimize these allegations by suggesting Lively “clearly got grossed out” rather than experiencing legitimate harassment. This dismissive framing reduces workplace misconduct to a matter of personal discomfort rather than professional standards. When multiple women (reportedly including Jenny Slate and Isabela Ferrer) are willing to testify about similar experiences, this isn’t about cultural differences—it’s about a pattern of behavior.

THR also engages in false equivalence by portraying both sides as “aggrieved underdogs.” Baldoni signed a document acknowledging inappropriate behavior needed to stop, yet the article spins this as him being overly deferential rather than admitting culpability.

The religious practice of sharing personal details at meetings might be uncomfortable but isn’t the issue here. The problem is using faith as a shield against accountability for alleged sexual harassment. Many religious people maintain appropriate professional boundaries without difficulty.

Ultimately, THR’s framing serves to protect powerful men by creating special exemptions from workplace standards. The suggestion that harassment might be excused through a religious lens undermines the progress made in creating safer workplaces for everyone.