Macy’s Fires Employee for Protecting Women’s Dressing Rooms from Cross-dresser

[blacken700]

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

[MCWAY]

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.

[LurkerNoMore]

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.

[MCWAY]

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.

[LurkerNoMore]

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?

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

Seriously, why are we discussing this.  I don't shop at no fucking Macy so fuck them anyway.

[MCWAY]

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.

[kcballer]

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. 

[tonymctones]

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...

[LurkerNoMore]

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. 

[LurkerNoMore]

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. 

[MCWAY]

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.

[LurkerNoMore]

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.

[MCWAY]

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.

[LurkerNoMore]

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. 

[MCWAY]

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.

[LurkerNoMore]

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.

[MCWAY]

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.

[LurkerNoMore]

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.

[MCWAY]

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.

[LurkerNoMore]

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

[LurkerNoMore]

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?

[MCWAY]

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!!!!!  

[LurkerNoMore]

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?

[MCWAY]

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!