Macy's Favors LGBT Policy over Religious Rights of Employee

December 06, 2011

A Macy's department store employee in San Antonia Texas was fired based on her religious convictions against LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) activity. Natalie Johnson, now a former Macy's employee, had seen a man wearing make-up, dressed in girl's clothing come out of the women's dressing room. Johnson proceeded to politely ask the man not to use the women's dressing room again as it is intended for females. His response was that he IS 'Female'.

The customer along with the five others he was with explained that Macy's is LGBT-friendly and demanded to speak with the store manager. Johnson's boss referred to the Macy's policy which states that “transgender” individuals can change in any dressing room. Johnson pointed out that Macy's policy also protects against religious discrimination. The store manager proceeded to tell Johnson that she would need to abide by the LGBT policy or lose her job. Johnson refused as she felt that it violated her religious beliefs and was then fired.

The founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, Matthew Staver, stated, “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.”

This issue is only going to grow as companies alter their policies in order to 'accommodate' and vacillate toward the 'politically correct'. This is only one story, but cases like this will become more and more common if we fail to let companies like Macy's know our dissatisfaction with “modern” policies.

Comments 20

Sally 06 Dec
This is hardly a matter of being 'politically correct' or undermining someone's religious beliefs. Transgender people are a reality, and no amount of denial will change that. We learn more everyday - medical tests prove that the brains of transgendered people work as the gender with which they identify, not as they outwardly appear. Just because people who are not transgendered may have difficulty understanding, doesn't make it a political issue. This is an identity issue - one that is filled with constant struggle for the individuals who must face this everyday and in every public place they go.

That employee's religious beliefs have nothing to do with what changing room a person uses. She can maintain all of her beliefs; she can personally question whether she agrees with her employer; she can choose to work elsewhere if it bothers her that much; but she does not have the right to supersede her employer and the rights of the customers who shop there. Chances are, if that individual had been asked to produce a driver's license, it would have identified her as female.

My suggestion is that anyone who feels so strongly against transgendered people and is willing to put another's personal identity to constant ridicule and condemnation should become more informed. There are many scientific studies. In addition,we all become more aware when we hear real narratives. The memoir What Becomes You is a good place to start - you may not agree with everything, but at least you can come to understand the struggle. There are very real repercussions:

Over 50% of transsexuals will attempt suicide by 20. The murder rate is obscenely high. Constant lack of compassion, ignorance turned to fear turned to aggression and hateful actions, refusal to simply let these people exist, takes it toll. Please don't add to it by making this about a disagreement with an employer. This is NOT a religious freedom issue.
Peter Calabrese 06 Dec
Well the first time a "man" walks in on someone's daughter or wife and sues Macy's for sexual harassment or corruption of a minor we will find out where everybody stands. How about gym locker rooms? Should a transgendered guy get to go to the local gym or YMCA and change in there. I think everyone should change and dress in the rooms for the body they have not the one they think they want to have.
Margaret 06 Dec
I'm with Peter-- I would think allowing people to "choose" their appropriate changing room opens up enormous liability for Macy's because of the possible safety and harassment issues. How on earth will a changing room attendant be able to tell the different between a sincerely "confused-gendered" individual and a CREEPY PERVERT looking to exploit a loophole?
Sally 06 Dec
It seems both Peter and Margaret are concerned about the criminals who will exploit the situation. There is always the risk of those who will exploit any situation, but this does point to the need for evolving approaches to such issues. However, one simple basic observation - the transgendered individuals will go into their own dressing area, the creepy pervert will attempt to look in on someone else's area.

Wherever one stands on the concerns / discomforts here, I don't see anyone making a case that this is about religious freedom in the comments.
Sally 06 Dec
It seems both Peter and Margaret are concerned about the criminals who will exploit the situation. There is always the risk of those who will exploit any situation, but this does point to the need for evolving approaches to such issues. However, one simple basic observation - the transgendered individuals will go into their own dressing area, the creepy pervert will attempt to look in on someone else's area.

Wherever one stands on the concerns / discomforts here, I don't see anyone making a case that this is about religious freedom in the comments.
Sally 06 Dec
It seems both Peter and Margaret are concerned about the criminals who will exploit the situation. There is always the risk of those who will exploit any situation, but this does point to the need for evolving approaches to such issues. However, one simple basic observation - the transgendered individuals will go into their own dressing area, the creepy pervert will attempt to look in on someone else's area.

Wherever one stands on the concerns / discomforts here, I don't see anyone making a case that this is about religious freedom in the comments.
Dean 06 Dec
How about exercising one's freedoms under law to not do something? It sounds to me with this case (along with many others) the much touted 'freedom to choose' is being selectively used by those who wish to do whatever they wish to do, whenever they wish - 'do what thou wilt' as Aleister Crowley called it.
Sally: What people who don't believe in Christ Jesus have to understand is that we answer to a much higher authority than the simple desires, wants and whims of others. This is a calling we must answer to in the hereafter. This means doing the right thing in the face of opposition or coercion no matter the cost. And, no amount of hate allegation, intimidation or legal force will change this.
Find Facts 06 Dec
Scientific studies show that the brain possesses plasticity; that it’s molded by influences, belief, and behavior. So, are we dealing with a chicken or egg thing? Is it possible that a person can be born into the wrong body, as the GLBT folks would have us believe? They certainly have the Hollywood media on their side, but there’s no science there, just many of the GLBT persuasion. What is clear for all to see is that the GLBT agenda has long ago become the theater of the absurd. Perhaps the way to reintroduce common sense to the matter is start with a good, loud belly laugh.
Incorrigible 06 Dec
Forget criminals and perverts. Forget political correctness. Forget religious beliefs.

And even after all of those are forgotten or set aside, there is still something left. There are still some people in this world who have a sense of personal modesty. They aren't willing to dress and undress in front of others who are of the opposite sex, no matter what message the brain activity of those others may be sending or how many surgeries those others may have undergone. They may understand the transgender phenomenon and bear no ill will to transgendered people, but STILL not be willing to dress and undress in front of them.

So--what? Abolish the rights of the modest to preserve their modesty? Insist on condemning that modesty, or trying to make of it something that it is not, in the hope of oppressing it out of them? Sacrifice them as consumers of anything involving a change of clothing? Cling firmly to the belief that some people must sacrifice their own rights so that others may assert theirs? What?
Nanna 06 Dec
This is ridiculous. Just give the transgendered their own dressing rooms. Men, women, and trans. This should solve the problem. And religion doesn't really have anything to do with the issue. I think this is just a subterfuge. Of course, as soon as you give them their own dressing rooms, they are going to start yelling "discrimination." We've opened a Pandora's box with this issue. By the way, if you are going to start using statistics, please back them up with a reference. Who says that 50% of transgendered people attempt suicide before age 20? Where did you get your sample? As the saying goes, figures don't lie, but liars do figure.

When you talk about transgendered, what exactly do you mean? Are you talking about a true hermaphrodite, or are you talking about someone with a sexual identity issue?

I applaud the woman for protecting her customers. The article says that the transgendered person was accompanied by 5 other people. This was obviously a set up situation designed to make a statement. If Macy's thinks more of its LGBT customers than the rest of us so called normal men or women, I think I will just take my business elsewhere. I was actually thinking about making some purchases at Macy's this season, but thank you for changing my mind.
Mike T. 06 Dec
Theater of the absurd, indeed. We have 'what-if'ed' this public debate into absurd territory. We have foolishly given credibility to foolishness. This isn't about 'what if' anymore. We're gradually becoming a society of 'whatever', and we will reap the (negative) consequences of having allowed our society to bow to foolishness. The individual virtues of the citizenry are becoming a thing of the past. What galls me more than anything else is that we continue arguing with foolishness to the point that we allow the realities of these negative consequences to be redefined, as well.

And the Elite will continue to ride us all to the polls and cash in on the mess... at the expense of our posterity.
Sally 06 Dec
It seems both Peter and Margaret are concerned about the criminals who will exploit the situation. There is always the risk of those who will exploit any situation, but this does point to the need for evolving approaches to such issues. However, one simple basic observation - the transgendered individuals will go into their own dressing area, the creepy pervert will attempt to look in on someone else's area.

Wherever one stands on the concerns / discomforts here, I don't see anyone making a case that this is about religious freedom in the comments.
Beth 06 Dec
I find this policy to be very offensive and demeaning to people without a Y chromosome. Throughout all of history, and still to this day, people without a Y chromosome have been considered second-class citizens, have been subjected to enormous amounts of abuse and can legally be killed in some cultures! Some cultures abort babies, simply because they do not have a Y chromosome! Some estimates are as high as 4 million people without a Y chromosome are abused or killed each year! It is very difficult to be a person without a Y chromosome. Some of those without a Y chromosome are subjected to monthly medical issues which affect them emotionally as well as physically. Every month they must deal with feelings of unexplained sadness, fatigue and bleeding! Those without a Y chromosome are much more likely to have to endure severe pain during childbirth. Millions of people without a Y chromosome have died from childbirth! People without a Y chromosome are nuch more likely to be raped, sexually mutilated and sold for sex! For most of history cultures didn't even consider educating people without a Y chromosome as being important, wouldn't allow them to own property and subjected them to demeaning work such as cleaning and cooking. No one without a Y chromosome has ever been elected President in the US! Many scientific studies have proven that being born without a Y chromosome is NOT A CHOICE! People without a Y chromosome are born that way! They deserve to be respected and protected for who they are! Macy's should provide a seperate changing area for all people without a Y chromosome, so they can feel safe. Stop victimizing those without a Y chromosome!
Sally 06 Dec
I am sorry about all of the re-postings of my last comment - I only submitted it once and have no idea why it keeps reappearing.
Beth 06 Dec
I find this policy to be very offensive and demeaning to people without a Y chromosome. Throughout all of history, and still to this day, people without a Y chromosome have been considered second-class citizens, have been subjected to enormous amounts of abuse and can legally be killed in some cultures! Some cultures abort babies, simply because they do not have a Y chromosome! Some estimates are as high as 4 million people without a Y chromosome are abused or killed each year! It is very difficult to be a person without a Y chromosome. Some of those without a Y chromosome are subjected to monthly medical issues which affect them emotionally as well as physically. Every month they must deal with feelings of unexplained sadness, fatigue and bleeding! Those without a Y chromosome are much more likely to have to endure severe pain during childbirth. Millions of people without a Y chromosome have died from childbirth! People without a Y chromosome are nuch more likely to be raped, sexually mutilated and sold for sex! For most of history cultures didn't even consider educating people without a Y chromosome as being important, wouldn't allow them to own property and subjected them to demeaning work such as cleaning and cooking. No one without a Y chromosome has ever been elected President in the US! Many scientific studies have proven that being born without a Y chromosome is NOT A CHOICE! People without a Y chromosome are born that way! They deserve to be respected and protected for who they are! Macy's should provide a seperate changing area for all people without a Y chromosome, so they can feel safe. Stop victimizing those without a Y chromosome!
Sally 06 Dec
Nanna,
Here is one website that looks at the question of whether that percentage is urban legend. It provides information from scholarly journals and other sources.
http://www.hemingways.org/GIDinfo/morbid.htm

The fact that you ask me to qualify what I mean by transgendered, "true hermaphrodite," and so on, indicates that there is a broad spectrum for individuals based upon many criteria, from genetic syndromes to other issues. To simply say that there should be a "trans" dressing room denies that some of these individuals identify as male, some as female. Some are in the process of conversion, some will never be able to afford medical treatment ... I do believe that there are solutions that can be found - "gender neutral dressing rooms" perhaps being an option - that might account for individual comforts and concerns on all sides.
Sandy 06 Dec
I could care less what gender the "person" in question thought they were, nor do the religious beliefs of the young employee have anything to do with this....what it does have to do with is my rights as a consumer, and a female, to go into a dressing room, expecting ONLY other females to be present. All this political correctness is utter BS and nonsense and it's about time someone has the conviction to stand up for what is RIGHT, not what is POLITICALLY CORRECT. I'm sorry if the "person" is gender confused, I truly am. HOWEVER.......I have daughters and I DO NOT want to have to be concerned about them using a dressing room where not all of those using it are female!!
Dean 06 Dec

Nanna, I believe, has hit the issue quite squarely on the head - setting up a situation. After all, there was a clear choice for the employee who ought to have been given the nod in this. Unfortunately, she had to be made an example of. Is this really what our society has come down to - crocodile tears and mob rule for the sake of a lack of morality and virtue? I'm glad I was raised in a proper context where a person is judged fairly and equitably, and given slack for conscience and belief and not harassed nor persecuted for holding true to his or her faith.
Chris 06 Dec
I find that some of the commentors here are missing the main point of the article. Yes, the topic of how to regard certain individuals in society is present, but the argument is that Natalie Johnson was fired for her religious convictions (which are indeed backed by scientific arguments that actively attempt to counter her intellectual opposition). A direct conflict resulted from two policies established by the Macy's store: accomidating all individuals in certain ways and the state mandated religious freedom laws. Which one won? Well, that's obvious from Miss Johnson's loss of a job, and that's the trouble with the event. This isn't as simple a matter as some, such as Sally, seem to be making it. Lack of awareness of arguments for other positions on the dispute is not the reason why Miss Johnson was fired, she was fired because she disagreed, with her own good arguments, and her disagreement found expression through religious conviction. The opposition to LGBT groups are not ignorant and stupid people, yet they are frequently portrayed that way (makes it easy to ignore their arguments).

If Miss Johnson had to be punished in some fashion, although I am certain that any punishment is justification enough for alarms to ring, she should not have been fired.
BJ 04 Jan
I liked the comment regarding individuals without Y-chromosomes. No responses to that? That is because it was all true and made the point. Common sense trumps the BS. I am so disgusted with Macy's I hope they tank and give the other department stores all of the leftover business. A business making decisions that stupid doesn't deserve to stay in business. Let's just hope that the government doesn't decide to bail them out with our tax dollars too.