Macy's Worker Fired For Challenging Transgender Teen In Changing Room

[punkypink (imported)]

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/12/08 ... nk3|119226

"Johnson's religious beliefs prevent her from recognizing transgender people, she said. By firing her over this belief, Macy's had violated her rights, she claims."

And by going to challenge a transgender person, she did not violate the trans person's right? Hypocrite.

[janekane (imported)]

For myself, and I cannot say for anyone else, I much prefer decency, kindness, and authentic respect over any and all "rights."

How many wrongs have resulted from people claiming their rights with whatever force and violence seemed necessary?

[Paolo]

Very many religious people are hypocrites. Sadly, the transgender person will probably be found to be "in the wrong" while the religious nutcase will no doubt get trillions in compensation that is undeserved.

[punkypink (imported)]

I think, it will be some small comfort that the trans girl in this matter will not be found in the right or wrong no matter what the outcome, as they're sueing Macy's. But I don't think Macy's will lose, because 1) the employee cast the 1st stone. She violated the rights of others, whether she believes in their right to exist or not is besides the point. 2) A store has the right to dictate rules concerning employee conduct and to fire employees flouting the rule. I don't think that "do not harress customers, whatever your personal belief" is an unreasonable rule. It's called professionalism.

[devi (imported)]

This being San Antonio, with a former Texas ruling on chromosomes and marriage:

I tried to put on a link but it didn't take and i don't have too much time but a few years back in San Antonio because a lady had 'XY' chromosomes she was found to not be legally married since she was really a so-called "male" in a lawsuit. It went up to to the Texas supreme court which upheld the ruling. So now if an alleged "crossdressing male" happens to have 'XX', 'XXY' or even 'Y' deletions... Oh never mind. You understand how convolluted it can get.

Other couples that could now marry in San Antonio include those that were ... the non-transsexual should sue, alleging that all the non-transsexual spouse did was ... the heterosexual crossdresser and spouse have a definite stake in the ...

[Mac (imported)]

The changing rooms have closed private stalls. Why must they be gender segregated? I have seen women freely use the men's changing rooms without any recourse. Why the bias?

[ned123 (imported)]

I don't know if you have seen the video interview with the woman. But she is black. Talk about someone who should understand bigotry. At any rate I find that her religion goes against my religious freedom. So now what. This all comes down the the same stuff when a pharmacist who refuses to fill a birth control perscription. Baslicly if they cant do their job then get out of that profession. They should go to a theocratic country and get the hell out of a democratic one. It always amazes me how people don't get the whole idea of religious freedom. This country is founded on freedom "from" religion. You can believe in whatever you want but you can not foist your belief on to others.

[devi (imported)]

With the law in Texas about gender being the way that it is, how do we know that this alleged "transgendered" person was not an 'XX' male dressing up according to her chromosomes? Then she wouldn't be a transgender afterall. She would simply be being herself even if she did have a beard which we don't know. There was a case right there in San Antonio where a woman was not able to sue on behalf of what would normally be considered to be her husband. The court decided that since he had 'XY' chromosomes and she also had 'XY' chromosomes (having CAIS --complete androgen insensitivity syndrome) and that a marriage was only ellible between a "man" and a "woman" then she could not be considered to be his wife and he her husband. They both were 'XY'. Big money was not only able to turn up her "condition" but was also able to sway the decision. But still the decision was made. So in order to be able to prohibit anyone from using the women's (or men's) dressing rooms you would have to somehow be able to get a reading on their actual chromosomes. Good luck with THAT!!! I have talked with people who say that they can pick out Jewish people from a crowd and the truth is they can't and whereas you'd have better luck discerning someone by their chromosomes you still just really can't. Especially since this apparently happened at the Riverview Mall right off of the famous San Antonio River Walk where people of all persuasions (we're not talking race or color here) go out to enjoy the evening and where you too might get offered a date if you wanted it or had some cash on you.

[punkypink (imported)]

The changing rooms have closed private stalls. Why must they be gender segregated? I have seen women freely use the men's changing rooms without any recourse. Why the bias?

As far as I know, changing rooms have never been gender segregated. Just because it's in the men's or women's clothing section doesn't make it exclusively for one gender. At least that's how it is in the UK. I'm just guessing in this case the Macy's employee was being unprofessional.

[EricaAnn (imported)]

Thank goodness that Macy's is willing to defend a person's right to express themselves for who they are and what they are.