Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: MCWAY on December 06, 2011, 12:11:59 PM
-
Gayness and political correct buffoonery strikes again.
Macy’s Fires Employee for Protecting Women’s Dressing Rooms from Cross-dresser
A young woman was fired from the Macy's San Antonio Rivercenter department store in Texas for refusing to violate her religious beliefs by permitting a young man dressed as a woman from entering the women’s dressing room. Natalie Johnson claims she saw the young man walk out of the women’s fitting room and politely told him that he could not go back in because it was for women only. The cross-dressing young man claimed that he is a “female.” Johnson said that he was wearing make-up and girl’s clothing, but clearly he was a male. The cross-dresser was accompanied by five other individuals. The group argued with expletives that Macy’s is LGBT-friendly, to which Johnson replied that Macy’s is also non-discriminatory toward religion, and that it would go against her religious beliefs to lie that he was a woman or compromise with homosexuality. The group then demanded to speak with a manager.
When Johnson was confronted by her employer, she explained that she could not allow a male to change in a female’s fitting room. Johnson’s boss referred her to Macy’s LGBT policy which allows “transgender” people to change in any dressing room they want. However, Johnson pointed out that the same policy also protects against religious discrimination and, in this case, it protects her right to her beliefs that were being violated. The manager demanded that she comply with the LGBT policies or lose her job. Johnson refused to go against her sincerely held religious beliefs and was terminated from her job.
Macy’s policy which allows men to use the women’s dressing room is fraught with problems. This policy will cause significant problems and will alienate the majority of Macy’s customers. Macy’s has essentially opened women’s dressing rooms to every man. The LGBT agenda has become the theater of the absurd.
http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14102&AlertID=1337
-
Herman Cain has denied he was even at Macy's. And if he was there, it was only to help clean the women's dressing rooms.
Size Nine, nine nine!
-
Herman Cain has denied he was even at Macy's. And if he was there, it was only to help clean the women's dressing rooms.
Size Nine, nine nine!
9 seems to be the IQ of your statements, as of late. Then again, you're the guy that castigated Cain for allegedly lying and committing adultery, yet excused Gringrich for ACTUALLY lying and committing adultery.
Of course, this is the part where you actually address the topic at hand.
-
Well it's pretty clear which policy the employer favors.
-
Gayness and political correct buffoonery strikes again.
Macy’s Fires Employee for Protecting Women’s Dressing Rooms from Cross-dresser
A young woman was fired from the Macy's San Antonio Rivercenter department store in Texas for refusing to violate her religious beliefs by permitting a young man dressed as a woman from entering the women’s dressing room. Natalie Johnson claims she saw the young man walk out of the women’s fitting room and politely told him that he could not go back in because it was for women only. The cross-dressing young man claimed that he is a “female.” Johnson said that he was wearing make-up and girl’s clothing, but clearly he was a male. The cross-dresser was accompanied by five other individuals. The group argued with expletives that Macy’s is LGBT-friendly, to which Johnson replied that Macy’s is also non-discriminatory toward religion, and that it would go against her religious beliefs to lie that he was a woman or compromise with homosexuality. The group then demanded to speak with a manager.
When Johnson was confronted by her employer, she explained that she could not allow a male to change in a female’s fitting room. Johnson’s boss referred her to Macy’s LGBT policy which allows “transgender” people to change in any dressing room they want. However, Johnson pointed out that the same policy also protects against religious discrimination and, in this case, it protects her right to her beliefs that were being violated. The manager demanded that she comply with the LGBT policies or lose her job. Johnson refused to go against her sincerely held religious beliefs and was terminated from her job.
Macy’s policy which allows men to use the women’s dressing room is fraught with problems. This policy will cause significant problems and will alienate the majority of Macy’s customers. Macy’s has essentially opened women’s dressing rooms to every man. The LGBT agenda has become the theater of the absurd.
http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14102&AlertID=1337
Not really....the policies are for the benefit of the "customer"...not the employee. She was made aware of the LGBT policy and she refused to follow it.
Besides, all of the dressing rooms are private.
Sorry but she was stupid.... :-\
-
^^^
so is the policy
-
^^^
so is the policy
When you work for any company nowadays, there's always a bunch of retarded policies.
-
When you work for any company nowadays, there's always a bunch of retarded policies.
correct, doesnt make them ok or justifiable.
This man is well, A MAN!!!
and as such logically shouldnt be allowed in the WOMENS dressing room.
-
Dressing rooms are private. It doesn't matter if it is a co-ed policy. Only one person per room is the norm. Someone's sexual orientation shouldn't matter.
-
Dressing rooms are private. It doesn't matter if it is a co-ed policy. Only one person per room is the norm. Someone's sexual orientation shouldn't matter.
This isn't about sexual orientation. Even gay guys have to use the MEN'S restroom. This kook, claiming he's a female and his actually BEING female are two different items.
He wasn't even a tranny, just a dude with some screws loose and an identity crisis.
-
What was Macy's policy?
-
What was Macy's policy?
They had two:
1. "LGBT policy which allows 'transgender' people to change in any dressing room they want"
2. "However, Johnson pointed out that the same policy also protects against religious discrimination"
They followed one and ignored the other.
-
What if she was discriminating against the tranny's religious beliefs? All I see was that she only took her religious beliefs into consideration. Not anyone else's.
Since she put her religious beliefs first, then I assume that God will put food on the table for her.
-
What if she was discriminating against the tranny's religious beliefs? All I see was that she only took her religious beliefs into consideration. Not anyone else's.
Since she put her religious beliefs first, then I assume that God will put food on the table for her.
And what religious beliefs would that be, "Thou shalt pretend to be a girl, to use the women's dressing room"?
Again, he's not EVEN A TRANNY. He's a guy, period.
By this silly logic, any guy can walk in the women's dressing room.
-
By this silly logic, any guy can walk in the women's dressing room.
Lets see if those defending Macy's idiotic policy can comprehend this logical statement.
It will go right over their heads. Or it will be ignored.
Common sense and decency are dead. Fitting rooms today, restrooms tomorrow.
-
Lets see if those defending Macy's idiotic policy can comprehend this logical statement.
It will go right over their heads. Or it will be ignored.
Common sense and decency are dead. Fitting rooms today, restrooms tomorrow.
EXACTLY!!
What's clothes got to do with anything? All some guy has to do is claim he's really a girl and he gets to use the women's dressing facilities? How stupid is that!!!
-
So religion trumps company policy is that it?
While Macy's has a policy that also protects against religious discrimination
I am pretty sure that it means it protects employees and customers from being discriminated against because of their religious beliefs. Not that it allows employees and customers to force their religious beliefs onto one another in an act of suppression.
In the end, the first rule of business is The Customer Is Always Right. Macy's acted accordingly by letting her go for not following company policy.
-
So religion trumps company policy is that it?
While Macy's has a policy I am pretty sure that it means it protects employees and customers from being discriminated against because of their religious beliefs. Not that it allows employees and customers to force their religious beliefs onto one another in an act of suppression.
In the end, the first rule of business is The Customer Is Always Right. Macy's acted accordingly by letting her go for not following company policy.
Do regular guys get to dress in women's rooms or not?
This guy wasn't a tranny. By surface accounts, his "parts" were present and accounted for.
To claim that a dude has a right to dress in women's dressing rooms, by simply thinking he's a girl is ludicrous.
And, as Beach Bum stated, the company policy covers religious rights. This would be known as selective enforcement. It's easier to castigate people of religious faith than homos.
-
The context here isn't about what the guy was or wasn't. It is about an employee using her religious beliefs to deny a customer something the company allowed. Again, I am sure Macy's company policy in regards to religion protects both employees and customers from having religious actions forced upon them.
Since you seem to be obsessed with the LGBT issue of it, let's try this a different way.
Target needs a cashier. They select a young lady out of their pool of applicants as their new hire. Customers come up to the young lady's cashier station with Christmas ornaments and merchandise. The young lady happens to be a Jehovah's Witness. She refuses to ring up their Christmas related merchandise because Christmas is against the religion of JW. Target has a company that does not allow the discrimination of people for religious grounds.
What should Target do?
-
The context here isn't about what the guy was or wasn't. It is about an employee using her religious beliefs to deny a customer something the company allowed. Again, I am sure Macy's company policy in regards to religion protects both employees and customers from having religious actions forced upon them.
Since you seem to be obsessed with the LGBT issue of it, let's try this a different way.
Target needs a cashier. They select a young lady out of their pool of applicants as their new hire. Customers come up to the young lady's cashier station with Christmas ornaments and merchandise. The young lady happens to be a Jehovah's Witness. She refuses to ring up their Christmas related merchandise because Christmas is against the religion of JW. Target has a company that does not allow the discrimination of people for religious grounds.
What should Target do?
What a ludicrous comparison. First, no JW (and I know some personally) would likely have such an issue.
Second, there is a general policy in store that MEN dress in MEN'S rooms and WOMEN dress in WOMEN's dressing rooms. This was a GUY (despite his cracked pysche). By rule, he goes to the guy's dressing rooms. Did the other gay guys (those who don't act like fairies) go into the women's rooms? My guess is they went to the men's room.
And, he's not even a tranny, just a fruity (i.e. effeminate) gay guy. If a non-fruity gay dude still has to use the men's rooms, then the fruit should as well. Just as dressing like a duck doesn't make him a duck, dressing like a girl doesn't make him girl.
-
Words to live by :
There are those who seem to confuse religious belief with religious dictatorship.
Apparently the ex-employee is one of those. Again, you didn't answer the prior scenario I laid out.
Please show me how she was discriminated against because of her religion?
-
Words to live by :
Courtesy of "Lez Get Real", I take it.
Apparently the ex-employee is one of those. Again, you didn't answer the prior scenario I laid out.
Please show me how she was discriminated against because of her religion?
Religious dictatorship? Telling a MAN he has to use the MEN'S dressing room?
She was discriminated against, because she was not given the benefit of the doubt as an employee. She followed procedure.
This guy was just that, a guy, not a woman or a tranny. Thus, like every other guy, he needs to use the men's facilities. Plus, despite citing company policy regarding her religious rights as well as the LGBT thing, she was berated by the fruit and his friends.
Rather than face a bunch of cranky gay-rights bubbas, Macy's simply chickened out by firing this woman.
-
She did not follow procedure. It is clearly posted by Macy's and referenced in the article
Johnson’s boss referred her to Macy’s LGBT policy which allows “transgender” people to change in any dressing room they want.
Again, how did her religious discrimination occur?
-
She did not follow procedure. It is clearly posted by Macy's and referenced in the article
Johnson’s boss referred her to Macy’s LGBT policy which allows “transgender” people to change in any dressing room they want.
Again, how did her religious discrimination occur?
This guy wasn't "transgender". He was simply a cross-dresser. The article also said, Johnson said that he was wearing make-up and girl’s clothing, but clearly he was a male.
He's a guy, not a girl or a girl-in-transit. He's a GUY and GUYS dress in the GUY'S dressing room.
Thinking you're a girl no more makes you a girl than thinking you're a chicken makes you poultry.
-
So she looked inside his pants? Isn't the transgender conversion something that takes place over a couple of years or something? Starting with hormone shots and such? I don't think you just go from looking masculine to feminine over a weekend. I think it is safe to assume that Johnson herself is not a medical expert or doctor of any kind. Or else she wouldn't be working at Macy's. So she would not have any other reason or qualification outside her own biased viewpoint to determine whether this person was actually actively undergoing transgender therapy at the moment.
Again, you have failed to show how she suffered religious discrimination.
-
This guy wasn't "transgender". He was simply a cross-dresser. The article also said, Johnson said that he was wearing make-up and girl’s clothing, but clearly he was a male.
He's a guy, not a girl or a girl-in-transit. He's a GUY and GUYS dress in the GUY'S dressing room.
Thinking you're a girl no more makes you a girl than thinking you're a chicken makes you poultry.
While people self-identify as transgender, transgender identity includes many overlapping categories. These include cross-dresser (CD); transvestite (TV); androgynes; genderqueer; people who live cross-gender; drag kings; and drag queens; and, frequently, transsexual
-
So she looked inside his pants? Isn't the transgender conversion something that takes place over a couple of years or something? Starting with hormone shots and such? I don't think you just go from looking masculine to feminine over a weekend. I think it is safe to assume that Johnson herself is not a medical expert or doctor of any kind. Or else she wouldn't be working at Macy's. So she would not have any other reason or qualification outside her own biased viewpoint to determine whether this person was actually actively undergoing transgender therapy at the moment.
Again, you have failed to show how she suffered religious discrimination.
Wrong! Her discrimination came from her boss. Despite citing company policy that protects her and this guy clearly being a GUY, her boss violated her rights by terminating her without giving her benefit of the doubt and, despite the vile treatment she got from this dude and his buddies.
And, by your logic, any guy that wants a free peep at the ladies in the women's dressing area just has to claim he's really a girl.
-
Let's just assume that ex-employee Johnson is a medical professional and looked inside the whatever's pants and saw a cock. And recognized it was some queer acting silly. Ok, we got that. I am not asking about anything in regards the LBGT issue.
What I am asking is how Mrs Johnson was religiously discriminated against. Did the he/she/it/whatever ask for Mrs Johnson to join them in prayer to Goddess of FruityPebbles? Did Mrs. Johnson's supervisor refuse to let her pray in the breakroom before eating her lunch? Did the store refuse to let Mrs Johnson read her Bible while on break? Does Macy's have a policy forbidding anyone from wearing a cross around their neck?
Seriously I am looking for how Mrs Johnson was religiously discriminated against. All I keep her is bleating about the queer and his manly appearance.
-
While people self-identify as transgender, transgender identity includes many overlapping categories. These include cross-dresser (CD); transvestite (TV); androgynes; genderqueer; people who live cross-gender; drag kings; and drag queens; and, frequently, transsexual
That's exactly what makes the term utterly STUPID. Thinking you're Lebron James doesn't make you able to play basketball. Thinking you're a fish doesn't give you the ability to breathe underwater unassisted.
-
Wrong! Her discrimination came from her boss. Despite citing company policy that protects her and this guy clearly being a GUY, her boss violated her rights by terminating her without giving her benefit of the doubt and, despite the vile treatment she got from this dude and his buddies.
And, by your logic, any guy that wants a free peep at the ladies in the women's dressing area just has to claim he's really a girl.
How did her boss religiously discriminate against her? Show me the religious discrimination.
Obviously he did give her a benefit of a doubt. He gave her a choice to follow the LGBT policy or lose her job. She chose to lose her job.
By your logic, changing rooms do not have doors or allow privacy in each stall. Where do you shop again that has this?
-
Seriously, why are we discussing this. I don't shop at no fucking Macy so fuck them anyway.
-
How did her boss religiously discriminate against her? Show me the religious discrimination.
Obviously he did give her a benefit of a doubt. He gave her a choice to follow the LGBT policy or lose her job. She chose to lose her job.
By your logic, changing rooms do not have doors or allow privacy in each stall. Where do you shop again that has this?
Apparently, you don't comprehend that well. The religious policy got SCRAPPED in favor of the gay policy. And I just found out why. Some tranny sued Macy's earlier for some similar silliness.
BTW, since when did not letting a confused guy used the women's dressing room become a firable offense? A reprimand would be one thing; but losing her job, being berated by a bunch of homos, is absurd.
But, that's to be expected when PC foolishness rears its head. There was no attempt to follow BOTH policies and resolve the stiuation. This was about punishing someone for her religous beliefs to appease some gays.
-
Johnson’s boss referred her to Macy’s LGBT policy which allows “transgender” people to change in any dressing room they want.
End thread. There is no religious discrimination taking place, the only discrimination is coming from this person towards another. Good riddance.
-
While people self-identify as transgender, transgender identity includes many overlapping categories. These include cross-dresser (CD); transvestite (TV); androgynes; genderqueer; people who live cross-gender; drag kings; and drag queens; and, frequently, transsexual
by this definition any male can claim they identify as a female and be allowed into the womens dressing room.
whatever the outcome the policy is as idiotic as normalizing the behaviour is...
-
Apparently, you don't comprehend that well. The religious policy got SCRAPPED in favor of the gay policy. And I just found out why. Some tranny sued Macy's earlier for some similar silliness.
BTW, since when did not letting a confused guy used the women's dressing room become a firable offense? A reprimand would be one thing; but losing her job, being berated by a bunch of homos, is absurd.
But, that's to be expected when PC foolishness rears its head. There was no attempt to follow BOTH policies and resolve the stiuation. This was about punishing someone for her religous beliefs to appease some gays.
#1 Where is the religious discrimination? Because she was not allowed to impose her religious viewpoint on another? Is that where the discrimination comes in? Otherwise, please tell me where she was religiously discriminated against.
#2 The article that YOU posted plainly says she was given a choice to follow company policy or lose her job. She CHOSE to lose her job.
-
Johnson’s boss referred her to Macy’s LGBT policy which allows “transgender” people to change in any dressing room they want.
End thread. There is no religious discrimination taking place, the only discrimination is coming from this person towards another. Good riddance.
THANK YOU!!!
Despite asking multiple times, MCWAY still can not clearly list the religious discrimination. Because there isn't any.
The only thing he has listed beyond smoke and mirrors is :
her boss violated her rights by terminating her without giving her benefit of the doubt
How is that religious discrimination? Are Jews are given the benefit of a doubt? Maybe Scientologists get 2 benefit of doubts. Buddists get unlimited doubts to their benefit. But Christians do not get a single benefit of a doubt. Is that what you are saying McWAY???? Otherwise please list how religious discrimination has occurred.
-
THANK YOU!!!
Despite asking multiple times, MCWAY still can not clearly list the religious discrimination. Because there isn't any.
The only thing he has listed beyond smoke and mirrors is :
How is that religious discrimination? Are Jews are given the benefit of a doubt? Maybe Scientologists get 2 benefit of doubts. Buddists get unlimited doubts to their benefit. But Christians do not get a single benefit of a doubt. Is that what you are saying McWAY???? Otherwise please list how religious discrimination has occurred.
Both you and KC have trouble reading. There isn't just one policy; there are TWO. One deals with religious freedom; the other deals with LGBT stuff.
Did this boss integrate BOTH POLICIES to resolve this matter? NO! Is there anything citing that the LGBT policy supercedes the religious liberty policy? NO!
Instead of reconciling BOTH POLICIES to resolve this issue, this boss SCRAPPED the religious freedom item, let his employee get flame-sprayed by this flamer and his co-horts, and gave what is likely an unwarranted ultimatum.
When you have two equally-weighted policies (or, at least, what appear to be such on the surface), yet you DELIBERATELY IGNORE ONE of them, that is discrimination, pure and simple.
That fact that you and KC can't grasp this simple concept ain't my fault.
"No guys in the women's dressing rooms....unless you think you're a girl. How utterly preposterous. This ranks right up there with the stupidity of a mom trying to put her SON in the Girl Scouts.
-
You have failed to point out where the religious discrimination came in.
What act of religious discrimination was she subjected to? You continue to talk around the subject and yet offer no specifics.
-
You have failed to point out where the religious discrimination came in.
What act of religious discrimination was she subjected to? You continue to talk around the subject and yet offer no specifics.
Brush up on your reading. There are two policies, of presumably EQUAL weight. You use BOTH policies, in this situation. You don't ignore one and selectively enforce the other, threatening termination for non-compliance with bias and bogus enforcement.
Then, there's the little matter of where failure to comply with either policy is supposed to result in instant termination.
The specifics are there. Your blind sympathy for trannies seems to be clouding your comprehension abilities.
-
I understand there were two policies. I am not talking about the LGBT one. That is clear.
I am asking how she was religiously discriminated against? Was it because she was not allowed to impose her religious viewpoint on another person? Is that it? If not for the last time PLEASE LIST SPECIFICALLY HOW RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION CAME INTO PLAY HERE. List the specific action against her.
And for the last time, she was not instantly terminated. She chose to lose her job.
-
I understand there were two policies. I am not talking about the LGBT one. That is clear.
I am asking how she was religiously discriminated against? Was it because she was not allowed to impose her religious viewpoint on another person? Is that it? If not for the last time PLEASE LIST SPECIFICALLY HOW RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION CAME INTO PLAY HERE. List the specific action against her.
And for the last time, she was not instantly terminated. She chose to lose her job.
Your not liking the answer or being unable to digest it DOES NOT EQUATE to your question being unanswered.
She was not able to exercise her religious freedom, DESPITE A CLEAR-CUT POLICY allowing her to do such. She was told to either cater to this tranny and his buddies or get fired. Dollars to donuts, there were other ways to deal with this issue (i.e. have another clerk help this fellow, dismiss this guy and his friends for their swearing, a reprimand or counseling letter), other than termination.
This was done to make an example of her, deliberately because of her religious beliefs.
-
Your not liking the answer or being unable to digest it DOES NOT EQUATE to your question being unanswered.
She was not able to exercise her religious freedom, DESPITE A CLEAR-CUT POLICY allowing her to do such. She was told to either cater to this tranny and his buddies or get fired. Dollars to donuts, there were other ways to deal with this issue (i.e. have another clerk help this fellow, dismiss this guy and his friends for their swearing, a reprimand or counseling letter), other than termination.
This was done to make an example of her, deliberately because of her religious beliefs.
Her religious freedom consisted of imposing her viewpoints on another person. Is that what you are saying that Macy's would not allow?
Why do you keep bringing up termination when she CHOSE to lose her job. You posted the article that plainly states it was her choice.
-
Her religious freedom consisted of imposing her viewpoints on another person. Is that what you are saying that Macy's would not allow?
Why do you keep bringing up termination when she CHOSE to lose her job. You posted the article that plainly states it was her choice.
The mere idea that men should use the MEN's rooms and women should use the WOMEN's room equate to imposing her viewpoint is beyond absurd, all based on a cracked-in-the-skull dude who THINKS he's a girl.
If any other dude had rolled out of the women's dressing room, she would have told him the same thing. But, because one particular guy THINKS he's a woman, she is now forced to abandon her religious beliefs (already protected by store policy) and common sense or get fired.
-
That has absolutely ZERO to do with religious discrimination.
Again, you can not list the religious discrimination. Since that has been established, let's move along to the next part of your cryfest. You continue to claim that Macy's fired her.
Did they fire her or did she choose to lose her job? Which is it? No long winded rambling answer of nothingness either.
-
That has absolutely ZERO to do with religious discrimination.
Again, you can not list the religious discrimination. Since that has been established, let's move along to the next part of your cryfest. You continue to claim that Macy's fired her.
Did they fire her or did she choose to lose her job? Which is it? No long winded rambling answer of nothingness either.
They fired her, pure and simple (Read the title of the article).
I've listed the discrimination, more times than I care to count. Again, your myopia/lapse of comprehension doesn't equate to an unanswered question. But, thanks for playing.
-
They fired her, pure and simple (Read the title of the article).
I've listed the discrimination, more times than I care to count. Again, your myopia/lapse of comprehension doesn't equate to an unanswered question. But, thanks for playing.
Wrong. As the exact article you posted says :
The manager demanded that she comply with the LGBT policies or lose her job. Johnson refused to go against her sincerely held religious beliefs and was terminated from her job.
She was given a choice. She chose to be fired.
You have listed NOTHING in the form of religious discrimination this woman has faced. Not surprising because there was none. You can't list what never occurred. She was not allowed to impose her own nutbag viewpoints on another person. And you call that discrimination? HAHAHAHAHAHA
-
Hey MCWAY, it seems the nutbag has gotten herself a little complaint filed.
She told KSAT 12 that she has filed a complaint with the federal employment commission, saying her views on religion prevent her from recognizing transgendered people.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2071437/Texas-Macys-worker-Natalie-Johnson-fired-refusing-allow-transgender-use-womens-fitting-room.html#ixzz1fyU697jB
Care to make a little bet on the outcome? I say there was no religious discrimination. You willing to bet that the commission finds that religious discrimination occurred?
-
Hey MCWAY, it seems the nutbag has gotten herself a little complaint filed.
Care to make a little bet on the outcome? I say there was no religious discrimination. You willing to bet that the commission finds that religious discrimination occurred?
You're late to the party. I knew she filed a complaint. I also knew why her former boss did what he did, as another tranny whined and complained about not being able to use the dressing room OPPOSITE to his ACTUAL (not self-perceived) gender.
We have a guy, who actually thinks up like a girl, acting like fruit. Yet Natalie Johnson is the "nutbag"? RIIIIIIIIGHT!!!!! ::)
-
Are we making a bet on whether the commission finds she was discriminated against on a religious basis?
I win, you have to put a transgendered photo as your avatar for a week.
You win, I will put a picture of Nutbag Natalie as my avatar for a week.
Or we can do the stand of the loser having to admit the winner was right.
We going to do this?
-
Are we making a bet on whether the commission finds she was discriminated against on a religious basis?
I win, you have to put a transgendered photo as your avatar for a week.
You win, I will put a picture of Nutbag Natalie as my avatar for a week.
Or we can do the stand of the loser having to admit the winner was right.
We going to do this?
No!
A federal court (depending on juridisction), that's one thing.
A federal employment commission, with all the cowering to gay-rights activists as of late, that's a stacked deck if ever I've seen it.
If this goes to court, you're on!
-
Why wouldn't it go to court? I mean... despite the fact you can't list the supposed religious discrimination that occurred, it should be obvious for everyone to see.
You got the deck stacked in your favor. This is in Texas. A God Fearing Bible Thumping Conservative red state. Sex freaks don't stand a chance with those kind of folks.
What happens if she drops the complaint? What happens if it is dismissed? Do I still win?
-
Why wouldn't it go to court? I mean... despite the fact you can't list the supposed religious discrimination that occurred, it should be obvious for everyone to see.
You got the deck stacked in your favor. This is in Texas. A God Fearing Bible Thumping Conservative red state. Sex freaks don't stand a chance with those kind of folks.
What happens if she drops the complaint? What happens if it is dismissed? Do I still win?
A Texas court ruled that a gay coupled who got "married" in Mass. could get their "divorce" in the Lone Star State. Not even Texas is immune from such lunacy.
Plus, this is a federal commission, not a state one.
-
A Texas court ruled that a gay coupled who got "married" in Mass. could get their "divorce" in the Lone Star State. Not even Texas is immune from such lunacy.
Plus, this is a federal commission, not a state one.
Again, if it is dismissed or if she drops it, do I win?
-
“It is against the Company’s policy for any associate to harass another associate based on race, ethnicity, age, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, physical or mental disability, genetic information, military status, marital status, medical condition, or any other category protected by law. Therefore, the Company will treat harassment as it does any other form of employee misconduct and it will not be tolerated.”
And:
“Macy’s will not tolerate harassment of any type based on race, ethnicity, age, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, physical or mental disability, genetic information, military status, marital status, medical condition, or any other category protected by law. Engaging in harassment of others will lead to discipline, up to and including termination of the associate violating Macy’s Anti-Harassment policy.”
What Johnson did was engage in harassment of an individual who is trans. What she got was fired.
-
Blacken - please list specifically the religious harassment and discrimination she faced.
-
it's saying she harassed the shopper ,so she was canned
-
Blacken - please list specifically the religious harassment and discrimination she faced.
Do you try on dresses in Macy's and other department stores?
-
Do you try on dresses in Macy's and other department stores?
If I did, it would take more guts than your shut in ass sitting at home ordering them online. It must suck that Victoria Secrets doesn't carry Plus Girl sizes for that waist of yours.
-
Both you and KC have trouble reading. There isn't just one policy; there are TWO. One deals with religious freedom; the other deals with LGBT stuff.
Did this boss integrate BOTH POLICIES to resolve this matter? NO! Is there anything citing that the LGBT policy supercedes the religious liberty policy? NO!
Instead of reconciling BOTH POLICIES to resolve this issue, this boss SCRAPPED the religious freedom item, let his employee get flame-sprayed by this flamer and his co-horts, and gave what is likely an unwarranted ultimatum.
When you have two equally-weighted policies (or, at least, what appear to be such on the surface), yet you DELIBERATELY IGNORE ONE of them, that is discrimination, pure and simple.
That fact that you and KC can't grasp this simple concept ain't my fault.
"No guys in the women's dressing rooms....unless you think you're a girl. How utterly preposterous. This ranks right up there with the stupidity of a mom trying to put her SON in the Girl Scouts.
Hahaha meltdown.
No infringement happened on anyone's "religious freedom". You see, religious freedom does not give one the right to discriminate against someone based on color, sex, and so forth. It is a fundamental liberty to not be discriminated against according to those reasons.
The question you are searching for the answer to is - does the right of the religious worker to discriminate against an LBGT customer trump the rights of the LBGT to be treated with dignity and respect and not be discriminated against? The answer is rather obvious. That is a NO. Hence, the employee was terminated.
-
Hahaha meltdown.
No infringement happened on anyone's "religious freedom". You see, religious freedom does not give one the right to discriminate against someone based on color, sex, and so forth. It is a fundamental liberty to not be discriminated against according to those reasons.
The question you are searching for the answer to is - does the right of the religious worker to discriminate against an LBGT customer trump the rights of the LBGT to be treated with dignity and respect and not be discriminated against? The answer is rather obvious. That is a NO. Hence, the employee was terminated.
Reality and common sense becomes so clear when you don't have those "faith sparkles" in your eyes clouding your judgement.
MCWAY saw the dingbat claimed her religious beliefs were tread upon and automatically went on Faith Defense mode. That's why he could not specifically tell how she faced religious discrimination. Because it didn't happen.
Macy's didn't just terminate her. The dumbass would still have a job if she had agreed to follow company policy. She terminated herself.
-
“It is against the Company’s policy for any associate to harass another associate based on race, ethnicity, age, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, physical or mental disability, genetic information, military status, marital status, medical condition, or any other category protected by law. Therefore, the Company will treat harassment as it does any other form of employee misconduct and it will not be tolerated.”
And:
“Macy’s will not tolerate harassment of any type based on race, ethnicity, age, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, physical or mental disability, genetic information, military status, marital status, medical condition, or any other category protected by law. Engaging in harassment of others will lead to discipline, up to and including termination of the associate violating Macy’s Anti-Harassment policy.”
What Johnson did was engage in harassment of an individual who is trans. What she got was fired.
Telling a MAN he has to use the MEN'S dressing room....... That's some REAL HARASSMENT THERE!! ::)
-
Not when there is company policy stating otherwise for the way he identified himself.
Again I ask, where is her religious discrimination occurring?
-
Reality and common sense becomes so clear when you don't have those "faith sparkles" in your eyes clouding your judgement.
MCWAY saw the dingbat claimed her religious beliefs were tread upon and automatically went on Faith Defense mode. That's why he could not specifically tell how she faced religious discrimination. Because it didn't happen.
Macy's didn't just terminate her. The dumbass would still have a job if she had agreed to follow company policy. She terminated herself.
Macy's terminated her, by ignoring the religious freedom portion of the policy and emphasizing their LGBT policy, pure and simple.
The dingbat is the fruit with the identity crisis, not Johnson.
-
Not when there is company policy stating otherwise for the way he identified himself.
Again I ask, where is her religious discrimination occurring?
And again, your question has been answered. Your inability to comprehend the answer doesn't equate to a lack of one.
Furthermore, wearing a dress and identifying himself as a girl no more makes him one than clucking and wearing feathers makes him a chicken.
-
No you did not. You simply throw out a blanket generalization.
Did Macys say she couldn't pray before her lunch?
Did Macys say she couldn't bring her Bible to work?
Did Macy's say she couldn't wear a cross on her necklace?
No, what they said was that she couldn't impose her religious beliefs on someone else. Period.
You refuse to see the obvious because you are too hell bent on harping about her "faith".
-
No you did not. You simply throw out a blanket generalization.
Did Macys say she couldn't pray before her lunch?
Did Macys say she couldn't bring her Bible to work?
Did Macy's say she couldn't wear a cross on her necklace?
No, what they said was that she couldn't impose her religious beliefs on someone else. Period.
You refuse to see the obvious because you are too hell bent on harping about her "faith".
he's not coming off the jesus train,why waste your time.did the same thing with cain ;D
-
he's not coming off the jesus train,why waste your time.did the same thing with cain ;D
He has gay hatred in one eye and faith lust in the other eye. That is why he can't see the simple truth that everyone else can see. That is why he won't take the bet I offered UNLESS it goes to a court first. Because he knows damn well that it will never reach a court in the first place.
Notice that not another single person has come here to help him out and support this nonsense claim? Not Beach, not Skip, not George, not Butterbean, not even the dumbass posters like 333 has supported this stupid claim.
You are right about the Cain comparison, EXACTLY like that. Everyone else can see the truth for what it is except him.
-
Gayness and political correct buffoonery strikes again.
Macy’s Fires Employee for Protecting Women’s Dressing Rooms from Cross-dresser
A young woman was fired from the Macy's San Antonio Rivercenter department store in Texas for refusing to violate her religious beliefs by permitting a young man dressed as a woman from entering the women’s dressing room. Natalie Johnson claims she saw the young man walk out of the women’s fitting room and politely told him that he could not go back in because it was for women only. The cross-dressing young man claimed that he is a “female.” Johnson said that he was wearing make-up and girl’s clothing, but clearly he was a male. The cross-dresser was accompanied by five other individuals. The group argued with expletives that Macy’s is LGBT-friendly, to which Johnson replied that Macy’s is also non-discriminatory toward religion, and that it would go against her religious beliefs to lie that he was a woman or compromise with homosexuality. The group then demanded to speak with a manager.
When Johnson was confronted by her employer, she explained that she could not allow a male to change in a female’s fitting room. Johnson’s boss referred her to Macy’s LGBT policy which allows “transgender” people to change in any dressing room they want. However, Johnson pointed out that the same policy also protects against religious discrimination and, in this case, it protects her right to her beliefs that were being violated. The manager demanded that she comply with the LGBT policies or lose her job. Johnson refused to go against her sincerely held religious beliefs and was terminated from her job.
Macy’s policy which allows men to use the women’s dressing room is fraught with problems. This policy will cause significant problems and will alienate the majority of Macy’s customers. Macy’s has essentially opened women’s dressing rooms to every man. The LGBT agenda has become the theater of the absurd.
http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14102&AlertID=1337
how exactly are her religious rights being violated? that's fucking stupid, religious rights pertain to personal choices; you cant impose them on others.
I do not agree with this woman at all, there was a clear policy toward allowing transgender people in the changing room- How does she know he/she was not?? Moreover, the reasoning she used for her actions was not justified at all, the changing rooms is not her private space for others not to violate her 'religious rights'.
-
interesting.
-
He has gay hatred in one eye and faith lust in the other eye. That is why he can't see the simple truth that everyone else can see. That is why he won't take the bet I offered UNLESS it goes to a court first. Because he knows damn well that it will never reach a court in the first place.
Notice that not another single person has come here to help him out and support this nonsense claim? Not Beach, not Skip, not George, not Butterbean, not even the dumbass posters like 333 has supported this stupid claim.
You are right about the Cain comparison, EXACTLY like that. Everyone else can see the truth for what it is except him.
I don't need nor do I ask for help to make my statements or defend them. If anyone wants to "support" the claim, he or she can do so.
-
how exactly are her religious rights being violated? that's fucking stupid, religious rights pertain to personal choices; you cant impose them on others.
I do not agree with this woman at all, there was a clear policy toward allowing transgender people in the changing room- How does she know he/she was not?? Moreover, the reasoning she used for her actions was not justified at all, the changing rooms is not her private space for others not to violate her 'religious rights'.
Where have you been? I have been asking that for the last two pages. And he can't answer it. He just runs around with this "there were 2 policies and they put the LBGT one first" bullshit.
Do not expect an intelligent or specific answer on this.
-
Where have you been? I have been asking that for the last two pages. And he can't answer it. He just runs around with this "there were 2 policies and they put the LBGT one first" bullshit.
Do not expect an intelligent or specific answer on this.
I can and have answered it, multiple times to the point where I've lost count. The fact that you and your tranny-sympathizing buddiesn can't digest that is neither my problem nor concern.
-
I don't need nor do I ask for help to make my statements or defend them. If anyone wants to "support" the claim, he or she can do so.
You need someone to hold your hand and help you find the specific instance on how she faced religious discrimination. Because you haven't found it yet.
No one has supported it yet because they can see the events and instances for what they are. There was NO religious discrimination to occur. You saying there was doesn't make it so. NONE. That is why no one else is saying the same.
Tell you what, go find the Macy's corporate policy online. I am sure it exists. Find their policy that details their freedom of discrimination based on religious views. Copy and paste that here. In BOLD highlight how she faced religious discrimination based on what occurred.
-
I can and have answered it, multiple times to the point where I've lost count. The fact that you and your tranny-sympathizing buddiesn can't digest that is neither my problem nor concern.
We can't digest delusions. Sorry about that. You on your own with that one.
Again, if she drops this complaint or it is tossed out... that means I win the bet correct?
-
We can't digest delusions. Sorry about that. You on your own with that one.
Again, if she drops this complaint or it is tossed out... that means I win the bet correct?
There is no bet.
And what you can't digest is the simplest of concepts; again, that's your issue not mine.
You need someone to hold your hand and help you find the specific instance on how she faced religious discrimination. Because you haven't found it yet.
No one has supported it yet because they can see the events and instances for what they are. There was NO religious discrimination to occur. You saying there was doesn't make it so. NONE. That is why no one else is saying the same.
Tell you what, go find the Macy's corporate policy online. I am sure it exists. Find their policy that details their freedom of discrimination based on religious views. Copy and paste that here. In BOLD highlight how she faced religious discrimination based on what occurred.
Unlike you, I don't depend on group-think to make my points. So, I'm not scurrying, asking 333386, Beach Bum, or anyone else to back me on this topic. I don't need them to do so.
Actually, Beach Bum did make his statement, which is similar to mine (it's on the first page). So, you miss again.
-
No will else will back you up because they are not that delusional.
There is no bet because you know damn well nothing occurred. That's why you wanted to make exemptions yesterday and now cancel it out all together.
Are you claiming that Macy's discriminated against her by not allowing her to impose her beliefs on someone else? Is that it?
-
No will else will back you up because they are not that delusional.
Wrong! Beach Bum already did, shortly after I posted this thread. So, once again, you miss!!
There is no bet because you know damn well nothing occurred. That's why you wanted to make exemptions yesterday and now cancel it out all together.
Are you claiming that Macy's discriminated against her by not allowing her to impose her beliefs on someone else? Is that it?
I've made my statements perfectly clear. Either you get a reading tutor or purchase a Reader Rabbit disk.
-
Wrong! Beach Bum already did, shortly after I posted this thread. So, once again, you miss!!
I've made my statements perfectly clear. Either you get a reading tutor or purchase a Reader Rabbit disk.
Maybe you can get Beach in here to pinpoint HOW her religious beliefs were discriminated against. Because you sure as shit haven't done it. And if you call that making your statements clear, then you are just admitting to what I have already said. You've posted nonsense. Not specifics.
But continue on... since you can't tell how her discrimination occurred, then maybe you can tell me what page the Bible speaks about transgendered people and dressing rooms? Maybe Constantine forgot to include that one.
-
i"ll give you the reason these jesus do gooders want to control their live and yours too,they'e all the same.most are hypocrites like cain ;D
-
i"ll give you the reason these jesus do gooders want to control their live and yours too,they'e all the same.most are hypocrites like cain ;D
And you communists want to control my life as well, just in different ways. How about both you and them, leave me the fuck alone?
-
^^^
so is the policy
I thought you would like this policy.
Today Macy's dressing rooms, tomorrow gym locker rooms! ;D
-
I thought you would like this policy.
Today Macy's dressing rooms, tomorrow gym locker rooms! ;D
Butterbean, was this lady discriminated against on a religious basis?
-
Butterbean, was this lady discriminated against on a religious basis?
She claimed her religious beliefs stopped her from letting the man into the women's dressing room, so yes, in looking at the 2 posted policies, she was.
Now, if the policies are more detailed, maybe that would make things more clear, but if it is as stated (simply) as in the earlier post, Macy's is at fault imo for a flawed overall policy. And it looks as though they did throw one out in favor of the other.
Perhaps Macy's should just state they have unisex dressing rooms and potential employees would have that knowledge when deciding whether to apply there or not....also, I wonder if potential hires are instructed to read and agree to the written policy.
Personally, one of the best sales people I've ever had is a gay man who comes in and out of the dressing area..bringing in things he thinks you'd like etc. I have no problems w/that at all but a male customer who is a man dressed as a woman (or not) coming in there...I wouldn't feel as comfortable with. You're not as sure of his intentions....maybe he's simply shopping, maybe he's not. There may be some men that don't want women in their dressing rooms either.....although probably a lower percentage relatively.
-
I thought you would like this policy.
Today Macy's dressing rooms, tomorrow gym locker rooms! ;D
LOL I havent seen much of the gym lately but ill try to get back into it and maybe that will change my opinion :)
Problem is though that if a regular guy like myself walked up there and said I was a women. They would stop me and not let me enter, yet if I dress up like a women somehow that makes it alright
-
i didn't know macy's had a gym
-
i didn't know macy's had a gym
You seem very worked up over this. Anything you want to share w the rest of us?
-
You seem very worked up over this. Anything you want to share w the rest of us?
all right you had to ruin the surprise, i was buying you a skirt to match the pink blouse you have and i payed a transgender person to try it on because he was the same size as you,5'2" tall.you happy now ;D
-
She claimed her religious beliefs stopped her from letting the man into the women's dressing room, so yes, in looking at the 2 posted policies, she was.
Now, if the policies are more detailed, maybe that would make things more clear, but if it is as stated (simply) as in the earlier post, Macy's is at fault imo for a flawed overall policy. And it looks as though they did throw one out in favor of the other.
Perhaps Macy's should just state they have unisex dressing rooms and potential employees would have that knowledge when deciding whether to apply there or not....also, I wonder if potential hires are instructed to read and agree to the written policy.
Personally, one of the best sales people I've ever had is a gay man who comes in and out of the dressing area..bringing in things he thinks you'd like etc. I have no problems w/that at all but a male customer who is a man dressed as a woman (or not) coming in there...I wouldn't feel as comfortable with. You're not as sure of his intentions....maybe he's simply shopping, maybe he's not. There may be some men that don't want women in their dressing rooms either.....although probably a lower percentage relatively.
What part of the Bible deals with dressing rooms?
Or are you saying that Macy's religious policy allows for discrimination against others under the pretension of "religious freedom"?
Also, the only thing that occurred was that she was not allowed to impose her beliefs on others. She could believe anything she wanted. But she could not use her beliefs as an act of suppression upon another person.
The fact that she even took a job at Macy's shows she isn't following her religious beliefs in the first place and just cherry picking the opportunity to use it as a tool against another being.
-
LOL I havent seen much of the gym lately but ill try to get back into it and maybe that will change my opinion :)
Problem is though that if a regular guy like myself walked up there and said I was a women. They would stop me and not let me enter, yet if I dress up like a women somehow that makes it alright
Not sure if you even need to dress like a woman though. Seems like anyone can go into any dressing room at anytime. They should probably just state they are unisex.
-
What part of the Bible deals with dressing rooms?
Or are you saying that Macy's religious policy allows for discrimination against others under the pretension of "religious freedom"?
Also, the only thing that occurred was that she was not allowed to impose her beliefs on others. She could believe anything she wanted. But she could not use her beliefs as an act of suppression upon another person.
The fact that she even took a job at Macy's shows she isn't following her religious beliefs in the first place and just cherry picking the opportunity to use it as a tool against another being.
According to the article:
"The cross-dressing young man claimed that he is a “female.” Johnson said that he was wearing make-up and girl’s clothing, but clearly he was a male."
"Johnson replied that Macy’s is also non-discriminatory toward religion, and that it would go against her religious beliefs to lie that he was a woman"'
So her feeling seemed to be that she would be "lying" if she allowed a man in the female dressing room. Ex 20 speaks to this as well as other places in the bible.
Like I said before, I wonder if she was aware of the policy before starting work there. If she knew about it and had a problem, they should have discussed possible scenarios w/the appropriate responses and/or which policy they would favor over the other so everyone could make an informed choice.
Also, the only thing that occurred was that she was not allowed to impose her beliefs on others. She could believe anything she wanted. But she could not use her beliefs as an act of suppression upon another person.
Lurker, do you see that the LGBT policy imposes some people's beliefs on others? It results in "women's" or "men's" dressing rooms to become neither.....so people that count on or would like these dressing rooms that are stated as such to remain as such no longer have that?
-
According to the article:
"The cross-dressing young man claimed that he is a “female.” Johnson said that he was wearing make-up and girl’s clothing, but clearly he was a male."
"Johnson replied that Macy’s is also non-discriminatory toward religion, and that it would go against her religious beliefs to lie that he was a woman"'
So her feeling seemed to be that she would be "lying" if she allowed a man in the female dressing room. Ex 20 speaks to this as well as other places in the bible.
Like I said before, I wonder if she was aware of the policy before starting work there. If she knew about it and had a problem, they should have discussed possible scenarios w/the appropriate responses and/or which policy they would favor over the other so everyone could make an informed choice.
Lurker, do you see that the LGBT policy imposes some people's beliefs on others? It results in "women's" or "men's" dressing rooms to become neither.....so people that count on or would like these dressing rooms that are stated as such to remain as such no longer have that?
I did not see where the freak was trying to impose his beliefs or lifestyle on her. I saw he was doing what he was allowed to in his rights of the company.
Was Macy's forcing her to accept homosexuality or crossdressing or whatever? Was Macy's telling her she couldn't have a belief against it? No. She could believe whatever and accept whatever, but she could not use that to deny another person something that the store point blank granted them.
No that was not the case was it? They were keeping her from imposing her beliefs on another person. There is nothing in the Bible that addresses transgendered people. So therefore, she had no "belief" to be violated. If she was true to her beliefs then she would have never taken a job at Macy's because the Bible does spell out it is a sin to combine cotton and wool. Therefore, if she was ringing up mittens or scarves or blankets or jackets, then she was directly violating her own "beliefs". Or maybe she was refusing to sell customers those items?
You can't cherry pick what parts of the Bible to live by when you adhere to principles of hypocrisy by ignoring other parts of it all together.
P.S. I give you credit for articulating a much more in depth and specific answer than anyone else on this board.
-
I did not see where the freak was trying to impose his beliefs or lifestyle on her. I saw he was doing what he was allowed to in his rights of the company.
Was Macy's forcing her to accept homosexuality or crossdressing or whatever? Was Macy's telling her she couldn't have a belief against it? No. She could believe whatever and accept whatever, but she could not use that to deny another person something that the store point blank granted them.
No that was not the case was it? They were keeping her from imposing her beliefs on another person. There is nothing in the Bible that addresses transgendered people. So therefore, she had no "belief" to be violated. If she was true to her beliefs then she would have never taken a job at Macy's because the Bible does spell out it is a sin to combine cotton and wool. Therefore, if she was ringing up mittens or scarves or blankets or jackets, then she was directly violating her own "beliefs". Or maybe she was refusing to sell customers those items?
You can't cherry pick what parts of the Bible to live by when you adhere to principles of hypocrisy by ignoring other parts of it all together.
P.S. I give you credit for articulating a much more in depth and specific answer than anyone else on this board.
Thanks for the kind P.S.
I agree that it's not the transgendered guy's fault that this happened...the fault of this situation lies w/Macy's flawed policies imo.
But if the reason they have the LGBT dressing room policy is because of former pressure from anyone ...then those that applied the pressure are imposing their beliefs upon others. If it's Macy's that took it upon themselves to implement the policy, then Macy's (people) are imposing their beliefs upon others.
And, the two sections of the policy are at odds w/each other.
I'm sure you know the bible speaks against engaging in homosexual acts, but let's assume this guy was a virgin. In regard to your statement that it doesn't mention "transgendered" I would submit that this scripture could apply to the situation: 1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
But that wasn't exactly her argument, I think. She said she believed she would have to "lie" to allow the guy into the women's dressing room. That was her issue....so she felt doing so would constitute some kind of lie on her part. If she knew the policy before her hire, I think she should have let the guy use the dressing room, but I'm not that lady and cannot speak on her mindset w/100% accuracy.
I think there are issues on boths sides that can be construed as pressing one's beliefs on another. Imo, if she knew about the open dressing room policy prior to her hire, she should have let him in. The sad thing is that this may push him further away from wanting to know God (if he doesn't) but it seems she was standing up for what she believed was the correct thing to do.
Oh, and the combining of the different fabrics is Mosaic Law. Has nothing to do w/a Christian (who should keep moral law but not Mosaic).
-
^^^^
That is how one presents a counter argument. Whether it is about religion or not. Some people on here should take note.
Whether he was a virgin or not is irrelevant to the case because there was no sexual activity going on in the dressing room.
Macy's adopting the LGBT policy was not imposing their beliefs on anyone but rather giving others the choice to identify with themselves. It isn't like they were standing there directing people to which dressing room to use based upon appearance. By the standard, this lady was directly imposing her beliefs on someone else. Now let's say this person worshipped the God of Hair Straighteners or Revlon or whatever else transgendered people pray to. And that God and his religion said they could use any dressing room they wanted. She by then was violating their religion with her own beliefs. How do you make a determination which religion is the "right" one in such an instance?
And if the effeminate are not allowed in heaven, I guess there is no hope for 333, Aaron carter or Justin Beiber.
-
^^^^
That is how one presents a counter argument. Whether it is about religion or not. Some people on here should take note.
Whether he was a virgin or not is irrelevant to the case because there was no sexual activity going on in the dressing room.
Macy's adopting the LGBT policy was not imposing their beliefs on anyone but rather giving others the choice to identify with themselves. It isn't like they were standing there directing people to which dressing room to use based upon appearance. By the standard, this lady was directly imposing her beliefs on someone else. Now let's say this person worshipped the God of Hair Straighteners or Revlon or whatever else transgendered people pray to. And that God and his religion said they could use any dressing room they wanted. She by then was violating their religion with her own beliefs. How do you make a determination which religion is the "right" one in such an instance?
And if the effeminate are not allowed in heaven, I guess there is no hope for 333, Aaron carter or Justin Beiber.
oR YOU KNOW WHO.
-
Not sure if you even need to dress like a woman though. Seems like anyone can go into any dressing room at anytime. They should probably just state they are unisex.
hmm good point, that would solve the situation
-
oR YOU KNOW WHO.
Yes. You!
-
The plot seems to be thickening at Macy's
Men Using Women’s Fitting Rooms Appears to be a Common problem at Macy’s
Another Macy’s employee has contacted Liberty Counsel and shared about repeated issues with men using the women’s fitting rooms. This individual asked to remain anonymous out of fear of losing her job. The employee said she constantly has to ask men to leave the women’s fitting rooms. In addition, she has been asked numerous times by mothers who have daughters in the fitting rooms to please ask the men to leave the women’s dressing rooms.
With the Christmas shopping season in full swing, customers around the country are sending Macy’s a message that such a bizarre policy is not acceptable. One woman posted on Macy’s Facebook page that her family normally spends $2,000 at Macy’s and they are planning to boycott the store.
This story of Macy’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender policy which allows men to use the women’s fitting rooms came to light when Macy’s fired Natalie Johnson from its San Antonio store after she politely told a clearly identified man that he could not re-enter the women’s fitting rooms.
Macy’s policy that allows men to use the women’s fitting rooms makes no sense. This policy has put at risk every woman shopper who enters one of these rooms.
http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14102&AlertID=1340
Tens of Thousands of People Petition Macy’s to “Protect our Women’s Fitting Rooms”
Tens of thousands of people have signed onto Liberty Counsel’s open letter asking Macy’s to change its policy that allows men to use the women’s fitting rooms. Liberty Counsel is delivering this letter today. Just last week, it came to light that a mother and her daughter were subjected to trying on clothes in Macy’s a dressing room run by a man presenting as a woman at the Galleria Mall in Dallas, Texas. This employee escorts women to the dressing rooms, entering the dressing rooms to clean out the clothes, and even providing different sized items to women while they are trying on their clothes.
Other reports are coming in from women around the country indicating that at various Macy’s stores men are routinely allowed to simply “hang out” in the women’s dressing rooms. In these situations, the men were identifying as men. One Macy’s employee said that mothers wanting to protect their young children have repeatedly asked store employees to tell the men to leave. In some situations employees refused to do so, claiming fear of a lawsuit.
Liberty Counsel’s open letter states, in part:
As an American who recognizes the crucial importance of cultural boundaries and same gender guidelines to the welfare of any society, I am appalled by your corporate decision to allow men to use whatever changing facilities they choose in Macy’s stores. This policy is both misguided and absurd. It creates an unnecessary threat to the comfort and safety of your customers and helps undermine the stability of our society! I am deeply concerned that pro-homosexual activism has brought your organization to enact such a poorly thought-out policy.
I applaud Natalie Johnson’s resolve to stand up for what she knew to be right and deny a man access to the women’s fitting room! Macy's policy, which allows men to use the women's fitting room, is fraught with problems. This policy will cause significant issues and will alienate the majority of Macy's customers. I call on Macy’s to do the right thing by reinstating Natalie Johnson and reversing this absurd policy.
Macy’s needs to protect women and change its policy that allows men to use the women’s fitting room. The current policy is a liability waiting to happen.
http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14102&AlertID=1343
As I suspected, guys hanging out in WOMEN'S dressing rooms (and they aren't even trannies). This policy of Macy's is beyond stupid.
-
Sounds like you should have kept the bet.
I am sure the court will rule against Macy's.
-
a bunch of do gooders write the Liberty Counsel= do gooder legal team,these people just can't mind their own business ::)
-
a bunch of do gooders write the Liberty Counsel= do gooder legal team,these people just can't mind their own business ::)
When women and girls are dressing in WOMEN'S dressing rooms and there are MEN in those dressing rooms, it becomes their business.
The last pitiful excuse you, Lurker, Chad, et al. kept giving was that this guy thinks or identifies himself as a girl. So, it's supposedly OK.
Now, we get reports that men (who aren't trannies) are hanging in these dressing rooms. Women are reporting them to the store employees; yet, they aren't doing JACK about it, because they're afraid of being sued.
Liberty should take this issue up. The absurdity of that screwball policy should be exposed and ultimately SCRAPPED.
-
When women and girls are dressing in WOMEN'S dressing rooms and there are MEN in those dressing rooms, it becomes their business.
The last pitiful excuse you, Lurker, Chad, et al. kept giving was that this guy thinks or identifies himself as a girl. So, it's supposedly OK.
Now, we get reports that men (who aren't trannies) are hanging in these dressing rooms. Women are reporting them to the store employees; yet, they aren't doing JACK about it, because they're afraid of being sued.
Liberty should take this issue up. The absurdity of that screwball policy should be exposed and ultimately SCRAPPED.
Hahaha LBGT induced meltdown.
-
Hahaha LBGT induced meltdown.
Not even close (Come up with some original material, please). But, thanks for playing.
Again, what's the excuse for the guys hanging out in girl's dressing rooms, now?
-
Not even close (Come up with some original material, please). But, thanks for playing.
Again, what's the excuse for the guys hanging out in girl's dressing rooms, now?
Hahaha this issue was already dealt with.
Do the rights of the consumer to chose which room they wish to change in, which is a choice supported by Macy's, over rule or super seed the employees religious beliefs and her right to not allow a transgender person change where they wish?
The answer is a resounding Yes in favor of the transgender individual.
There is no viable legal religious defense for discrimination that goes against Macy's policy.
If this individual were of a different race and was denied using the changing room based on a religious belief that it's not okay for other races to share change rooms would you still defend the employee?
Truth is you are in the wrong and just wish to push you anti-LBGT agenda some more. Sad really.
-
Hahaha this issue was already dealt with.
Do the rights of the consumer to chose which room they wish to change in, which is a choice supported by Macy's, over rule or super seed the employees religious beliefs and her right to not allow a transgender person change where they wish?
The answer is a resounding Yes in favor of the transgender individual.
There is no viable legal religious defense for discrimination that goes against Macy's policy.
If this individual were of a different race and was denied using the changing room based on a religious belief that it's not okay for other races to share change rooms would you still defend the employee?
Truth is you are in the wrong and just wish to push you anti-LBGT agenda some more. Sad really.
This has zilch to do with race, number one (nice try, lumping the two).
Number two, this is occuring, even with guys who aren't "transgender". Hence, we have the usual slippery slope that LGBT-sympathizers swear never happens. Guys (who clearly know they're guys and may not even be gay) are in women's dressing rooms.
For some strange reason, this policy isn't advertised very well (i.e. the women don't seem to know up from that guys, as long as they think they're girls, can use their dressing rooms).
BTW, the word is "supercede".
-
Gay hatred in one eye, faith sparkles in the other eye.
And yet... Macy's continues on.
-
Gay hatred in one eye, faith sparkles in the other eye.
And yet... Macy's continues on.
-
The object of your affection? Is that what you are telling us?
-
This has zilch to do with race, number one (nice try, lumping the two).
Number two, this is occuring, even with guys who aren't "transgender". Hence, we have the usual slippery slope that LGBT-sympathizers swear never happens. Guys (who clearly know they're guys and may not even be gay) are in women's dressing rooms.
For some strange reason, this policy isn't advertised very well (i.e. the women don't seem to know up from that guys, as long as they think they're girls, can use their dressing rooms).
BTW, the word is "supercede".
I know it has nothing to do with race it was an analogy you understand? Obviously not.
A slippery slope oh please. Now you are blowing it out of proportion. The fact is you have been proven incorrect. The issue is whose right trumps whose. Macy's customer trumps Macy's employee in this case. Case closed.
I'm sure if you feel you are so right about this go pay for the employees legal defense in a lawsuit then.
-
Dollars to dimes the court rules in Macy's favor.
-
Dollars to dimes the court rules in Macy's favor.
Its guaranteed to rule in Macy's favor.
Yet another blow to the religious right of America haha
-
Do the rights of the consumer to chose which room they wish to change in, which is a choice supported by Macy's, over rule or super seed the employees religious beliefs and her right to not allow a transgender person change where they wish?
And sadly, you call others dumb...
Scary to think how much this country spends on education too.
-
And sadly, you call others dumb...
Scary to think how much this country spends on education too.
My sentiments exactly.
The "slippery slope", if you will, is REAL and RELEVANT. You now have MEN (who ain't trannies and may not even be gay) hanging out in WOMEN'S dressing rooms and Macy's doing nothing about it, despite numerous complaints from women that these guys leave the area. Of course, KC ducks the blatantly obvious, on that front.
Now we have some "discrimination" here as to which guys can hang out in women's dressing rooms and which guys can't?
-
And sadly, you call others dumb...
Scary to think how much this country spends on education too.
I take it you can not argue against the points i made then? :-*
-
My sentiments exactly.
The "slippery slope", if you will, is REAL and RELEVANT. You now have MEN (who ain't trannies and may not even be gay) hanging out in WOMEN'S dressing rooms and Macy's doing nothing about it, despite numerous complaints from women that these guys leave the area. Of course, KC ducks the blatantly obvious, on that front.
Now we have some "discrimination" here as to which guys can hang out in women's dressing rooms and which guys can't?
Haha you make it sound like an epidemic when in reality it is not. Nice try though.
You have lost this argument fair and square. The supposed right to discriminate does not exist in favor of the worker and is reflected in Macy's decision to fire her. Furthermore, it will be reflected in any court case brought against Macy's.
Thanks for playing. :-*
-
Why are they hanging out in women's dressing rooms?
-
Why are they hanging out in women's dressing rooms?
For the very same reason you hang out in mens' dressing rooms.
-
For the very same reason you hang out in mens' dressing rooms.
To try on clothes?
Or is this your usual gay projection before you have your daily meltdown?
-
I take it you can not argue against the points i made then? :-*
Some reason why I would?
Ooops...forgot you're really dumb.
Here's a small clue. I didn't take issue with anything you said.
I'm pretty indifferent on this issue and don't much care either way.
That doesn't change the fact that you're still stupid as fuck.
-
To try on clothes?
Or is this your usual gay projection before you have your daily meltdown?
For you? no - I'm sure you are trolling and lurking more for hook ups w men.
-
For you? no - I'm sure you are trolling and lurking more for hook ups w men.
Your gay projections are showing again.
-
Your gay projections are showing again.
How many times have you hooked up w Benny and straw?
-
None. How many times have you wanted to?
-
LOL the fall back to the liberal reasoning...
if you disagree youre gay
or
if you disagree youre racist...
::)