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

[LurkerNoMore]

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?

[MCWAY]

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.

[LurkerNoMore]

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?

[blacken700]

“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.

[LurkerNoMore]

Blacken - please list specifically the religious harassment and discrimination she faced.

[blacken700]

it's saying she harassed the shopper ,so she was canned

[Soul Crusher]

Blacken - please list specifically the religious harassment and discrimination she faced.

Do you try on dresses in Macy's and other department stores?

[LurkerNoMore]

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.

[kcballer]

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.

[LurkerNoMore]

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. 

[MCWAY]

“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!!

[LurkerNoMore]

Not when there is company policy stating otherwise for the way he identified himself.

Again I ask, where is her religious discrimination occurring?

[MCWAY]

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.

[MCWAY]

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.

[LurkerNoMore]

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".

[blacken700]

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

[LurkerNoMore]

he's not coming off the jesus train,why waste your time.did the same thing with cain

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.

[haider]

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'.

[newmom]

interesting.

[MCWAY]

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.

[LurkerNoMore]

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.

[MCWAY]

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.

[LurkerNoMore]

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.

[LurkerNoMore]

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?

[MCWAY]

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.