Macy’s Fires Catholic Employee for Disagreement With Transgender Bathroom Policy

By Lydia Goerner Published on July 27, 2016

Javier Chavez had worked at Macy’s for 26 years. But the Roman Catholic man was recently fired because his views on sexual identity conflicted with the company’s policy.

According to Fox News, in May, Chavez, the senior store detective, received a call about a female customer and her daughter, who were afraid to enter the restroom because a man who identified as a woman was inside.

The man was asked to leave and refused. In his complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, Chavez wrote, “He later exited the bathroom holding hands with his female companion and he declared that he ‘was a female,’ which was not true.”

After the man who had used the bathroom complained to management, Chavez was informed that, under the Macy’s policy, men who identify as women are permitted to use the women’s restroom.

At that time, Chavez stated his beliefs on the subject, saying that this “was against my religion and contrary to the Bible. I also mentioned that I would not like my young daughters to be in the bathroom with a male inside.”

Chavez said he told Macy’s management that he would adhere to their policy about allowing people to use the bathroom that corresponds with the gender they identify with, according to The Daily Wire. Chavez also told them that, as a Catholic, he disagreed with the policy.

A few days later, Chavez was suspended. Following his suspension, he was terminated.

Though Macy’s did not discuss Chavez’s case specifically with Fox News, they stated, “Macy’s does not make employment decisions based upon religious beliefs or religions practices of applicants and employees.”

Macy’s said that they do expect employees to treat employees and customers in a “non-discriminatory and respectful manner in accordance with our company polices.”

Catholic League President Bill Donohue said Macy’s violated Chavez’s religious liberty, Life Site News reported. Donohue said Macy’s has no “legal or moral grounds to stand on.”

“The most basic religious right is the right to believe,” Donohue said. “If conscience rights can be vitiated, the First Amendment means nothing.”

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Gary

    There is a federal law that prohibits firing someone for their religious beliefs. The fired Catholic should sue based on that law.

    • jj

      You can practice your religion as long as a person doesn’t discriminate against a protective classification of people. Not allowing a transgender individual to use a restroom is discrimination. Not allowing an employee to illegal discriminate in the name of his religion is not discrimination. Not being able to enforce your religious views on another through illegal discrimination is not protected by law. You can’t proclaim discrimination for the employee and say that it is okay to discriminate against the transgender person because you agree with the employee’s religious view.
      Laws are in place to protect us all.

      • Ennis Demeter

        Please explain how responding to the complaints of a woman and a little girl horrified by man is discriminating against somebody based on religion. Trans activists might not be part of a recognized cult, but they are excellent in their efforts at getting women to shut up and not complain. Oh and firing the men who want to help them.

        • Rosemary Martin

          We live in an evil world where perversion is king. Read the bible, it is all in there.

          • MBalderson

            Yeah, it’s all in there. Like having your disobedient children stoned to death by the town elders. Deuteronomy 21: 18-21. Do you believe everything you read? No, only the parts you want to believe.

        • jj

          Responding to a complaint isn’t the issue. Trying to stop someone based upon your religion to legally use a public restroom is discrimination. Again, all your points to why transgender should not use women’s restroom are about the same as the 1960’s points on black people using the same restrooms. If we don’t understand our own bigotry, hatred, and intolerances of others not like, us we will repeat history. It’s apparent you are unable to see that the mistrust of Transgender is the same level of mistrust of blacks using the same restrooms as whites in the 1960s.

      • Ennis Demeter

        Remember, women: if you are frightened or uncomfortable upon finding a man in the women’s room, or locker room, or women’s shelter, or jail cell, or prison, or even your sports team: don’t you dare complain or ask for help. He knows better than you, and if you think that’s unfair, you’re no better than a Jim Crow racist. What do you expect? For men to actually respect you? Nah.

      • Gary

        If the story printed is true, Macy’s violated federal law. Simple as that.

        • O’Pinyon

          But federal law can be, and sometimes should be, overturned.

      • MBalderson

        I don’t understand how people don’t get the difference in discrimination and religious freedom. It’s what turned me against Christianity.

        • jj

          I’ll repeat some of what I stated above:
          Some people of faith believe women should only work in the home as a wife and mother. Fine by law. Forcing others to follow this faith based concept is not legal. My point is you can have faith but forcing it upon others is not legal. You wouldn’t want a different religion forcing their faith on you , would you? So, why would it be okay for you to force your religious beliefs on others? That’s why laws are in place to protect religious freedom for all.

    • MBalderson

      He wasn’t fired for his religion. He was fired for discrimination and disrespect to a customer.

      • Amy Unruh

        So can the mother and child sue Macy’s for disrespecting their feelings? If the guy had done what some others already have and attacked them or filmed them, people would have been singing his praises for protecting them. But he used the transgender defense with no evidence of transgenderism that was provided in the article. Claiming it doesn’t make it true unless people are afraid of being sued by the LGBT movement.

        • jj

          Amy you seem to not like the LGBT, could you be biased? By the way, most “attacks” on children are done by Heterosexual men. Rape is a power trip and not usually about sexual identity.

  • O’Pinyon

    How can it be a bad idea for a detective to protect female customers, who feel uncomfortable with someone who looks just like a man using the women’s restroom?
    We have conflicting values.

    • jj

      Before the political establishment made this news, you do realize that transgender people have been using the public restrooms they identify with for over 30 years? Transgender people have been using the public restrooms all along and now we are outraged because we know about it? Fear should not rule any one’s thinking. The idea that we should ban transgender from using certain bathrooms because a crime might be committed is ridiculous. If you think otherwise, than perhaps we should ban all priests because they might molest a child? And at least with priests there is a known history of abuse against children.

      • Ennis Demeter

        You are being ridiculous. You’re trying to tell us that women have no right to be nervous or afraid of men in their private spaces. The Woman and her daughter and the story were frightened by man in the women’s bathroom. I don’t know why you don’t care about that.

        • O’Pinyon

          Apparently, in the world where “feelings” are all-important, some people’s feelings are still more important than the feelings of others.
          Businesses will have some feelings of their own when women and girls limit their shopping to places where their comfort is considered important.

          • jj

            I couldn’t agree with you more about the “feelings” part. Just because the woman and Macys employee feel afraid doesn’t justify illegal discrimination on their part. Just because they find it wrong for THEM doesn’t give them the right to illegally discriminate against transgender. We have the right to practice our religion in our homes and in our place of worship. We don’t have the right to enforce our religion on others AND that is why the U.S. constitution says that religion has no place in U.S. government. And for good reason, what if it wasn’t your religion the U.S. government was using? That’s why the separation of church and state is vital to keep our religious freedom.

          • O’Pinyon

            You seem to be saying that one person’s beliefs can be given official preference over another person’s beliefs or concerns, as long as the winning belief is not “religious” in nature.
            But women and girls who do not want to share their restroom with someone who looks like a man may not be motivated by religious belief so much as concerns for their safety and privacy.

          • jj

            Unfortunately our feelings of safety or privacy may be based in hatred and fear of Transgender people? What as a society should we do about that?
            The reason religion is brought up is because of that is in part the reason why this issue of Transgender should not be able to use the bathroom. I was saying in other posts that we have religious freedom in our homes in our place of worship. So, if your religious view doesn’t like Transgender people, don’t invite them over to your church our home. However, if a Christian or a Transgender was denied or told not to use the Macy’s bathroom solely because they were either Transgender or Christian both instances would be considered illegal discrimination. Sometimes we forget that laws that protect LGBTQ also protect Christians.
            Now if any woman or girl feared going into a restroom because someone in there truly is a threat. Use another bathroom or wait till they come out. That’s what I did as a child-listen to your gut and do what’s best for yourself. But this story isn’t about a real threat per say, but more about the intolerance of others not like us (hatred).

          • O’Pinyon

            “Use another bathroom” is the obvious solution for someone who looks like a man.
            Use the men’s restroom.
            But, in our society, the feelings and desires of adults are considered more important than the needs of children.
            This is just the latest example of that fact.
            I’m not signing on to it.

          • jj

            Remember your intolerance, fear, or hatred does not trump federal law and civil rights. What if the problem was that a Christian was using the bathroom and an atheist try to stop them from using it?

            Your claim for “the needs of the children” is based on a threat that you assume all Transgender people possess. That claim can’t be justified or supported with logic with out using bigotry, hatred, or intolerance of others not like us to support that claim. A transgender person or a woman could commit a crime against a child, but statistically a priest is more likely.

          • O’Pinyon

            We have men’s restrooms, and women’s restrooms, not Christian and atheist restrooms.
            Please take a step back and think about what you are saying.
            The needs of children include being protected by adults.
            Someone who looks like a man, whether he thinks he is a woman, or a Christian, or an atheist, or a priest, should use the men’s restroom instead of demanding that his male body be relieved in the domain of women and girls.

          • jj

            You do realize that some European countries have shared restrooms? Men, woman, and children use them. Only thing separating them is a stall.
            I know we don’t have separate bathrooms for Atheists or Christians, but my point was singling out a person for one aspect and not letting them use the restroom because of it. Just imagine if an atheist didn’t allow a Christian to use the restroom? That is the same as not allowing a transgender person to use the restroom. And that is why law is clear that just as the atheist can’t discriminate against the Christian, neither can the Christian against the Transgender.

          • O’Pinyon

            The analogy is to having bathrooms for atheists and Christians, and the Christian demands to use the atheists bathroom, or vice versa. Why would anyone care to do that?
            But, the whole thing is ridiculous because we base bathrooms on biology and privacy.
            A shred of respect for people who are not like you, please.
            And an acknowledgement that the people with the biggest guns (the government) are not always right.

          • jj

            Your stance on the bathroom use is the same stance people in the 1960’s had towards black people using “white” bathrooms. “It’s biology and privacy.”

          • O’Pinyon

            But we aren’t discussing race, which has no relevance here.

          • jj

            Race like Transgender is a visual thing that you can’t escape from for the most part (exceptions noted.).
            A black person in the 1960’s was discriminated because he was black and couldn’t use certain restrooms. Currently some Transgender people aren’t or stopped from using restrooms because they are Transgender. Both issues are based on visual characteristics of their bodies. So, it is relevant as a comparison.

          • Amy Unruh

            Yes, sadly. What do you want to bet that there are a large number of bathroom rapes there? There bathrooms stalls are much more private. They are completely enclosed, no gaps in the doors.

          • jj

            Why wouldn’t there be more rapes on the nude beaches? It would seem more apt of a place for it to happen, no? My point is we shouldn’t jump to conclusions.

          • Michael Bagnall

            The problem with your argument is that you are assuming an attitude of intolerance, fear, and hatred without proving that it exists. You made the argument (I believe it was you) that we were using the bathroom with Transgendered people for years and never knew it…and you are absolutely correct…I didn’t care then, and I don’t care now, I couldn’t tell and I didn’t worry about it. The issue is that, you say that the politicians made it an issue, when in fact the LGBTQ/Transgendered community made it an issue by demanding that laws be put in place to say that it is ok. So why fix what is not broken…other than to force me to accept Gender Dysphoria as an acceptable lifestyle, whereas I believe that it is a type of mental illness that should be addressed with compassion not pandered to. Your argument is more…if you disagree then you just don’t recognize your intolerance, bigotry, and hatred, and any opinion based on personal belief, specifically religious belief, is inappropriate in a public setting. While you have been polite (I say that with great respect as much of our discussion in todays world lacks such common decency) your arguments do nothing but try to stifle dissenting views rather than address them in a meaningful way. Male/Female is a biological fact that separates the species in meaningful ways…to claim that discriminating between this and race is the same thing is a huge stretch. The color of ones skin does not define who they are…it is an arbitrary (and ridiculous) divider between people, but male/female is not arbitrary…the binary gender system is by definition absolute…are there exceptions to the rule…yes they make up less than 1% of the population and so are an anomaly not the norm…but even then a person born this way must make a biological choice. Gender Dysphoria is a choice…based on feelings, and those feelings on deep seated psychological needs, issues, desires…whatever you would like to call it, perhaps it is not even a choice per se, but neither is it a biological fact, but a psychological one. Our opinions differ and that is fine, that is precisely what makes our nation great, but to say that my opinion is invalid outside of my home, while yours is ok because its based on…what? Science? is bigotry at its most fundamental level.

          • Amy Unruh

            And it’s not based on science. Even hermaphrodites have either male OR female DNA. What this is is a result of it I broken world. Bipolar is recognized as a mental disease, not an identity. Pedophilia is a mental disease, not an identity, but there are people who will argue that sex with children is natural. It doesn’t make it a scientific fact just because you argue it, and so far, science is still pending on the transgender issue, as well.

          • jj

            So, your stance is that Transgender is a mental disease and not equal to an identity. So, if I don’t believe in your religion, I don’t have to recognize it as a valid religion? That seems to be the point your making. Please correct me if I’m wrong?

          • jj

            This is a repeat from above:

            If your religion is discriminatory and not all inclusive you might be subject to fall out because of it. The law is to provide a fair and balanced for not just the many but the few. If your religion is bigoted, sexiest, or stuck in intolerance of others not like us you might want to reconsider your faith. I’m not saying everyone’s faith is bigoted, sexiest, or even hate filled. But if your expression of the worldview, informed by their faith is bigoted, sexiest, or intolerance of others not like us than it is just that. Because sexiest, bigoted, or intolerance of others not like us is just that plain and simple. Those concepts are like law, designed to help and protect all. Some people of faith believe women should only work in the home as a wife and mother. Fine by law. Forcing others to follow this faith based concept is not legal. My point is you can have faith but forcing it upon others is not legal. You wouldn’t want a different religion forcing their faith on you , would you? So, why would it be okay for you to force your religious beliefs on others? That’s why laws are in place to protect religious freedom for all.

          • Michael Bagnall

            Once again, you have failed to address any of the points that I brought up in any meaningful way. You simple make veiled references and accusations that by disagreeing with the minority (and yes it is a minority) view on the transgendered and their rights is an act of intolerance and bigotry and sexism, when I have pointed out that there is no intolerance, the Christian Church in no way argues against the transgendered or the LGBTQ communities right to exist, nor do we advocate that their rights, as enumerated in the same Bill of Rights that applies to all citizens of this country, be taken away or denied…we simply believe that some of these rights do not exist in the Constitution, and that by demanding them and forcing the issue the Transgendered LGBTQ community is infringing on the longstanding and well established Constitutional rights of others. Nor do I see how my expressing my faith and morality in a public forum or a political one, is in any way forcing my religion others…you do exactly the same thing by expressing your morality in a public forum…it is called civil discourse, a cornerstone of intelligent conversation and political/moral debate. There is no constitutional right to “use the bathroom of the gender you ‘indentify’ with” except a vague and highly suspect interpretation of the 14th Amendment…there is no constitutional right to marriage same-sex or otherwise, except based on some vague notion of “dignity” based again on some vague interpretation of the 14th Amendment…there is not constitutional right to force another to provide you with their services, yes there are laws to that effect, but I do not believe that the Constitution backs them up…except based, once again, on some vague interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The issue, in my opinion, and not even based on religion, but simple intelligent observation is that this movement, while attempting to legitimize itself by a tenuous connection to the Civil Rights Movement for the rights of African Americans, is not actually about civil rights, or equal rights, or human rights…but about LGBTQ rights, not equal, but special…set above and beyond the rights of others. That is my opinion, it is not based on who these people are or the quality of their character as a whole (bigotry)…nor is it based on a desire to remove the community from its right to exist and prosper like the rest of us (intolerance)…but on what I see as a special interest group attempting to better their position in society at the expense of the rights and freedoms of others. Disagree if you will, as is your right, but please do not force your views on me, because what right do you have to force me to follow your system of belief? You have the right to believe whatever you want in your home but it is illegal and immoral to force your views on me. I apologize for the sarcasm but I am not sure how else to point out the fallacy of your arguments but to turn them back on you…a low form of debate but unfortunately at times a necessary one.

          • jj

            Earlier in our conversation you made the stance that faith based choices can’t be bigoted, sexiest, or intolerance of others not like us. I disagreed. I feel that your stance has not been effectively upheld by your arguments. I would go as for as to say that your arguments have proven that certain faith based world view opinions are in fact sexiest, intolerant of others not like us , and bigoted (Not all and not implying that you are either.).

            Stating your faith opinions has never been the issue, forcing your religious beliefs on others IS the issue. You have not distinguished the difference between the employee stating their belief that the Transgender can’t or shouldn’t use the restroom based on the employee’s belief. That is a direct forcing of one’s religious beliefs on another. Law is in place to protect the Transgender and the Christian (they both can’t be denied access to a bathroom because of being Transgender or Christian.) How is that special rights when Christians are treated the same in law? Sounds more like equal rights.

            Now your new stance of a conservative view of the Constitution is a new argument, keep in mind that the founders of this country said we needed to update the constitution from time to time. My system of belief in this matter is the law. The law is not a religion forcing it upon on others. Law is designed to protect the many and the few. You have not shown where that Christians have been treated less than the Transgender with regards to bathroom access. Until you’ve shown that your argument is invalid.

          • jj

            My opinion is based in law with the utmost right of religious freedom.

          • Amy Unruh

            Slow down JJ. You’re getting ahead of yourself. First, we have no evidence that this person was really transgender. The facts of the case actually point to the obvious and should anger people who identify as transgender for making this such a huge issue. A Bible-believing Christian would actually want to invite a transgender person to church and to their home, just as they would want to invite anyone without a relationship with God. And don’t accuse me of discrimination by saying that. We all get stung by the truth of the Bible, knowing that we are sinful creatures saved only by grace. I do pray that there are transgender people who are saved, but so far, I haven’t seen any who view it as a sin. Saying that women and girls, who feel unsafe in the bathroom with someone who is clearly male, should use another bathroom is simply unfair and discriminatory of their feelings and right to a safe bathroom. And how can they wait if they are already in there when the male enters? What if there is no other bathroom and it’s an emergency? There have been several news stories of little girls being attacked and women being filmed by men claiming the transgender defense. And these women and girls who should be safe in these places outnumber the small amount of transgender people. If a transgender person wants to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with, they had better look enough like that gender to blend in and not scare women who have seen the possible dangers or who have been already victimized by men and don’t want to be a victim again. The consideration should go both ways. True transgendered persons should understand that women need to feel respected and protected, just as much as they want to be respected and protected.

          • jj

            Did you know the born Transgender have brains that have elements of the sex they identify with. Meaning it’s make up of the brain is genetically similar to the sex they identify with.
            And just for the sake of argument let’s assume the person was a real Transgender person.
            Last time I checked filming women in restrooms was illegal whether woman, man , or a Transgender did it.

          • Bea Hall

            Umm, Macy’s is not the government.

          • jj

            But they can’t ignore law. You sound like all the white people in the south during the civil rights movement who were against equal rights and the forcing of it by the USA federal government.

          • O’Pinyon

            We may sound like that, but that’s not what we are.
            In the same way, a man may believe he is a woman, but that doesn’t make him a woman.
            The bottom line is that anyone who believes in protecting women and children, and helping troubled people by addressing their real problems, is not OK with men who feel that they are women, using women’s restrooms.

          • Michael Bagnall

            Just to be clear, the First Amendment guarantees the Freedom of Religion anywhere not just in our homes and churches, such an idea is ludicrous and did not exist until the last 20 years. And your understanding of Church and State is fundamentally flawed, the Constitution says that Government cannot establish a State Religion, not that religion has no place in Government, in fact the vast majority of the Founding Fathers have been quoted many times saying that religion is a fundamental part of a free Governmental process. The separation of the State from the Church is to protect the Church from the Tyranny of the State…precisely the thing that had taken place in England, and in many of the European Countries of the time. Sadly, it has been twisted in such a way as to remove religion from the public square as though we whose worldview is informed by our faith have no right to speak. The truth is, anyone who can separate their political and moral views from their faith calls into question the very faith they claim. Faith is a worldview, or informs a worldview just as does a lack of faith…while claiming that our expression of our worldview, informed by our faith, is bigoted, discriminatory etc…you are doing exactly what you accuse us of by telling us to keep it to ourselves because religious views of the world have no place in the public/political sphere.

          • Amy Unruh

            Extremely well said, intelligent, and eloquent.

          • jj

            If your religion is discriminatory and not all inclusive you might be subject to fall out because of it. The law is to provide a fair and balanced for not just the many but the few. If your religion is bigoted, sexiest, or stuck in intolerance of others not like us you might want to reconsider your faith. I’m not saying everyone’s faith is bigoted, sexiest, or even hate filled. But if your expression of the worldview, informed by their faith is bigoted, sexiest, or intolerance of others not like us than it is just that. Because sexiest, bigoted, or intolerance of others not like us is just that plain and simple. Those concepts are like law, designed to help and protect all. Some people of faith believe women should only work in the home as a wife and mother. Fine by law. Forcing others to follow this faith based concept is not legal. My point is you can have faith but forcing it upon others is not legal. You wouldn’t want a different religion forcing their faith on you , would you? So, why would it be okay for you to force your religious beliefs on others? That’s why laws are in place to protect religious freedom for all.

          • disqus_NZqVst0ZYm

            This is oppression of women. Men do not have a right to our spaces. It has nothing to do with religion. Science determines what sex you are and culture determines a person’s value. Our culture has never valued women and this is just further proof.

          • Jonathan Weintraub

            Yes, indeed. The “FEELING” that one’s bladder is full is felt by *all*. The frightful feeling that *some* may not relieve themsekves in a public restroom is perhaps one of the most selfish, anti-christian feelings imaginable.

          • O’Pinyon

            I agree.
            People who look like men should use the men’s restroom, so women and girls will be free to use the women’s restroom in peace.

          • Amy Unruh

            That’s a very bigoted and discriminatory view. No one is saying that a person can’t relieve themselves. Just that a person who is clearly still very male ( and likely abusing the transgender story, which should outrage transgender persons) should feel free to relieve himself in the designated male bathroom. Are you saying that it’s ok for men who are not transgender to be in a women’s bathroom? Are you saying that female rape victims shouldn’t be able to use a bathroom designated for them because it is now unsafe? Are you saying that little girls should be exposed to men in bathrooms? That’s sexist.

          • jj

            PTSD is a real thing and it doesn’t only affect women, but men too. Men and children get raped too and most of the time by heterosexual men. Again rape is about power and not so much sexual identity. So, which public bathroom should men who have been victimized by rape use?

          • disqus_NZqVst0ZYm

            They get access to bathrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms and our sports. All because they “feel” their body isn’t right. Well they are partially right. Their head isn’t right. And women deserve better than mentally ill men taking away what is rightfully ours.

      • disqus_NZqVst0ZYm

        Men that aren’t transgender are using our restroom. THAT didn’t happen before. YOU comprehend that??
        Why do think we are suddenly able to tell there is a man in the bathroom?
        Explain that.

        • jj

          I don’t think that’s what the article is about. I believe the person was Transgender. Not a man but transgender. The issue you bring up is totally different than the Macy’s incident.

          • disqus_NZqVst0ZYm

            Obviously people could tell what gender the person really was, that is the point. Men who pretend they are a woman to take advantage are actually more normal than the ones that think they are really a woman on the inside. It’s science. They are not.

  • jj

    Sometimes people confuse equal rights for LGBTQ as the persecution of the Christian faith. Unfortunately, a lot of Christians believe that if they are not allowed to discriminate, then they are “some how” the victim of discrimination. These equal rights are then labeled “special rights” or “privileges” the rest of us don’t have. To which I say, you mean special rights like churches who don’t pay taxes? Sometimes giving a class of people the same rights feels like they are getting special rights, when in fact it is correcting a wrong. All these anti-sentiment against transgender people is a direct reflection of our ignorance, bigotry, and hatred of others not like us. If you replace the word transgender with black people you would find the same anti-sentiment and hatred statements in the 1960’s about blacks using the same restrooms. Remember God is love not intolerant hate.

    • Ennis Demeter

      A woman and her daughter were frightened by a man in the women’s room and asked for help. They and the man who helped them are not equivalent to Jim Crow racists who thought Blacks were unfit to share bathrooms with. Stop pressuring women to stop saying no to men. No means no. Find another way.

      • jj

        A transgender person isn’t a man. Calling them that when the identify as a woman is almost the same as calling them the “n” word for a black person. If you don’t understand our bigotry, hatred and intolerance of others not like us you might as well be in ISIS. They only want their religion and their point of view for all to rule the land.

        • O’Pinyon

          But it isn’t wrong to recognize that a Black person is Black.
          What do you think about the white lady who said she was Black?
          How about the Emperor, in the story “The Emperor’s New Clothes” who demanded that everyone say he was wearing (beautiful) clothes when he was, in fact, buck naked?

        • Amy Unruh

          From the news story, we really don’t know if this person was transgender. If he was, he was clearly not doing much to appear to be a woman. He was holding a woman’s hand and looked every bit the man. He probably only said he was transgender to stay out of trouble. As a rape survivor, I want to feel safe in an area designated for women. Also, your opinion of the church is rather discriminatory, wouldn’t you say? You seem to think that Christians can’t be discriminated against, but you are clearly biased and yet you preempt any responses with the “crying discrimination” defense. Do you know why churches are tax exempt? Everything that the church buys comes from tithes, which comes from people who have paid their taxes. It’s all donated, and this charitable, money. Pastors pay taxes. My husband is a pastor. We tithe to the church on top of having taxes taken out. We pay taxes just like any other person when we get our groceries or pay for car repairs, etc. Only stuff used in and for the church is tax exempt. Now, I would love to identify as a person who was never raped so I could trust a man in a woman’s bathroom, but frankly, that would be unrealistic and stupid. It’s reality. We can’t have free reign to change reality to suit our own desires. If we could, I’d be free to shoot any man who raises a red flag with me, just because I identified him as a threat. Any woman who is ok with men having free reign in women’s designated areas ( I’m not speaking of a transgender-identifying person who looks like a female), has never been victimized by one and does not have daughter.

    • Gary

      There is no basis in the US Constitution for “lgbtq rights”. Neither do “lgbtq rights” come from God. Such “rights” have no legitimacy.

      • jj

        There are protective classes in the federal law. LGBTQ is one of them,

      • MBalderson

        They’re not LGBT rights, they are EQUAL rights. More and more courts are granting equal rights so you better get used to it.

    • Russ

      Ignorance must be bliss for you!! There is no discrimination here!! He wasn’t told he couldn’t use the public restroom he was just told to get out of the women’s restroom where he obviously didn’t belong!! And as far as protected classes. Under federal law go, religion is a protected class as well, but as usual these special little snowflakes believe nobody else’s rights matter just theirs!

    • mbabbitt

      Pure bunk. Then there is no reality, just feelings. Nonsense agreed to by many does not make it real.

    • capers2

      Which churches don’t pay taxes? Every church is required to pay property taxes. Every church also pays taxes on salaries too. Do you expect parishioners to pay taxes on the monetary gifts they place in the collection plates too? If so then the DNC, Planned Parenthood, charitable organizations and every non-profit organization (such as the Clinton Foundation) should be equally taxed on every single cent collected in donations.

  • Rosemary Martin

    To the employee who was fired for standing up for what is the right, moral choice, God bless you for doing the right thing. To Macy’s and LGBTQ, you will all, just like me, stand before God to be judged one day. Think carefully what agenda you support. For those who support LBBTQ, I do believe the first chapter of Romans says it all and the last verse tells those who support this evil what the Bible has to say. God gives us all a choice, every day, do good or evil…In this end time, and I do believe we are there, we have to do the right thing in God’s eyes, not man.

    • jj

      Unfortunately only God can determine what is evil. Your interpretation of what is evil is NOT God’s will or word. For you and you alone determined something was evil and casted judgement upon it. Projecting our “morals” upon others to feel superiority over the outcasts doesn’t seem something Jesus would do.

      • O’Pinyon

        Have you read Roman 1? As Romans goes on, we are all indicted before God. The only way any of us (ANY of us), can be close to a holy God, is repentance.

  • Zee

    He must have looked like a guy if the women wouldn’t go in because he was in there. The employee’s argument should have been based more on the possibility that the man was lying just to be in the women’s restroom.

  • O’Pinyon

    That this problem will have to be resolved by building single-user restrooms is one small example of the fact that immoral choices lead to economic loss, as well as loss of community.

  • Joan

    And we should just not have sections for men and women because some would think it is “gender” discrimination. Neither should we have sections for adults or children because that is just “age” discrimination. If men wants to wear little girl clothes or if boys want to wear adult women clothes, they should (sarcasm). And we also shouldn’t identify white criminals from black criminals because that would be “race” discrimination. Nor should we identify them with their heights or else that would be “height” discrimination (further sarcasm). Well, good luck with finding clothes that fit you or the criminal who just stole your wallet because you are ignoring the facts or the identity markers of what a person is born with.

  • jenelle_bahan

    If you’re religious beliefs interfere with you’re job or duties find another job if you’re religious beliefs don’t allow you to cater to certain people find another line of busness you’re religion belong in you’re home or church keep it thier we don’t want to hear you’re beliefs

    • Russ

      And if you want to be a freak and believe to be something your not keep it in your home we don’t want to participate in or hear your belief!!

      • Amy Unruh

        While I don’t agree with your terminoligy, this is a very valid point worthy of use as a defense in a courtroom. As it is, they discriminated against this employee, as well as two uncomfortable customers, to keep with a policy of non-discrimination. Insanity indeed.

        • jj

          The transgender person didn’t try to stop anyone by illegal discrimination from using a restroom. The employee and the customers tried to illegally discriminate against a transgender person because they felt they should and most likely did so out of fear, hatred, or intolerance of others not like us. So, your defense is because the employee can’t force his religious beliefs on others at a place he works at that the employee is discriminated against? Religion does not give you a pass to discriminate against people because you believe you have the right. The law is in place with out a religious stance in order to be impartial and balanced. If law took on a religious element, than what if it wasn’t your religion the government reflected? What if it was a different religion other than Christianity? You see the laws are here to protect us all Transgender and Christian alike.

    • mbabbitt

      If I identify as a 7 ft basketball player even though I am 5’2″, does that in anyway make it real? Why would you not allow me my assertion? You would say by appearance and by all objective measures I was at odds with reality. Exactly. What is the difference? Insanity is when you deny reality and want everyone else to believe the same utter foolishness. Feelings are not reality. Stop the insanity, now!

    • Amy Unruh

      Wouldn’t keeping your opinion to yourself fall into the same category? As it is, we would be disobeying Christ if we kept it to ourselves. We have just as much right to live our beliefs as you have to live and preach yours.

    • erospawn

      So following your advice..keep your noise at home too.. Shut up.. We are living in a society where people like you force your crap on everyone else making it difficult to live. You ain’t nuthing but Fascist bigot.

  • Bea Hall

    Shredding my Macy’s card.

  • Don Rowlett

    The fact that Macy’s said that they do expect employees to treat employees and customers in a “non-discriminatory and respectful manner in accordance with our company polices.” leads me to believe that he did more than just hold a belief.

    • Amy Unruh

      What they mean is that they expect everyone to be treated without discrimination unless one person’s rights, an allegedly male identifying as female is seen as more important than another person’s rights, in this case the fired employee, a woman, and her daughter, who felt unsafe with a person clearly still appearing as a man. If they had something more against the employee, they would have said something to allude to that. As it is, an employee of 26 years, would have likely only received a reprimand if he had done something wrong and would only have been fired if he refused to comply. Macy’s has lost my business.

      • jj

        Having dealt with delicate issues with the public, I would assume that the Macy’s employee over reached his authority and didn’t use the proper chain of command. (BTW The employees of Macys are union.)

  • SeriouslyChristian

    The whole notion of discrimination being a bad thing is ridiculous. Of course certain types of discrimination are bad, the issue is what types of discrimination are bad and what types are good.
    The fact is that many/most people believe that a man who calls himself a woman has some sort of a problem and should be treated as such.
    The real issue is the government using and exploiting these people to assume to itself the power to ban other people from making rational evaluations of people based on evidence presented.
    It is a form of government-enforced denial of people’s right to freedom of belief, a right a free people must never allow government to steal from them.

    • jj

      You have the right in your own home to discriminate all you want. If it’s in the public domain and you don’t want equal rights for those different than you. Get over yourself and allow people to be different and have equal rights. Those same rights they get protect Christians too. Some how Christians forget that?

      • SeriouslyChristian

        I dont think allowing people into any bathroom they choose is an equal rights issue. I never had the right to use the women’s bathroom, so it’s not an issue of me having more rights than a transgendered person. My issue is not so much with the ins and outs of national toilet policy as it is with the government assuming what I consider an illegitimate right to control the private property of others on far too open-ended a basis. I actually don’t mind Macy’s being allowed to fire an employee for not towing the company line, because the owner of Macy’s has a right to hire who he wants on his own property. If lots of people feel the same way as the employee they will all be fired and Macy’s will go out of business. The problem comes when all these employees want to start their own business according to their own moral principles and only allow biological men in the men’s toilet and biological women in the women’s. If they are forbidden to do this by the government (which is what I consider to be the end game of Obama’s bathroom ideas) this then IS an equality issue and it is distinctly and typically totalitarian as progressivism always is, namely the government using its full coercive power to enforce the moral dictates of the progressive elite on everybody.

        • jj

          That legitimate right to control private property is what the southern states thought about civil rights in the 1960’s or during the civil war. That the darn progressive elite U.S. government trying to make things equal as much as possible. Sometimes letting people get equal rights feels as your losing rights, but you are not.
          There are people born with a brain that is physical similar to the sex they identify with and are Transgender. Why should I care who pees next to me in a stall? Is my personal bigotry, bias, hatred of others not like me, or simple fear justified in not allowing it?
          As for over reaching of U.S. Government that is a whole other subject and the basis for all conjecture against Transgender is based in fear just like in the 1960’s when the African Americans got their civil rights to use the restroom.

          • SeriouslyChristian

            Politicised pseudo-science aside, it seems you believe the government should force people to promote your beliefs about gender on the whole country at the expense of all those who don’t believe (the majority). You call people who disagree with you ‘bigots’ but you are far worse because not only are you intolerant of other people’s beliefs but you are so ‘bigoted’ that you seek to have them threatened and coerced by gov if they fail to think like you. I also totally reject your comparison to race civil rights issues, gov most often promotes racism. Let transgender people have the right to do as they wish and follow what moral beliefs they have on their property and let Christians/non-progressives live out the morality they believe on their property. People can vote with their feet, choosing which gender ideology they choose to support.

          • jj

            Government is designed to protect the many and the few, Christians or Transgender too. This subject is about access to a restroom for a Transgender person. You say that my race comparison isn’t apt? Please explain why? Both were denied equal access to bathrooms based upon their outer appearance. Christians are not being blocked from using restrooms only Transgender. This is about equal rights for both Christians and Transgender to use the restroom. Christians aren’t losing their right to use the restroom.
            That coerced by government statement might as well be stated in the 1960’s during the civil rights movement.
            We have to ask ourselves why is it such a big deal if Transgender people use the restroom they identify with? After all aren’t gay people using them? In Europe Transgender have been using the restrooms for years and still do.
            So, why are we hung up on the Transgender people getting access to the bathroom they identify with? Could it be fear, bigotry, or hatred of others not like us?
            How is it that a Christian loses anything by letting a Transgender person access a bathroom? When a Christian goes into a restroom at the same time a Transgender is there, and you both come out of the restroom. You are still a Christian and they are still Transgender. Even if you don’t believe they should have access, your Christian beliefs have not changed.
            And besides, they have been using the restroom they identify with for at least 30+ years in the U.S. and now that it has been used for politics, we are fearful of what might happen?
            Im 100% for religious freedom.

          • SeriouslyChristian

            I agree that government ‘is designed to protect the many and the few’ but the key issue is the definition of ‘protection’. The success of Western culture is based on the inalienable rights of human beings, of which the foremost is the right to property, including your own life and labour. Human flourishing occurs when these rights are protected by government. Tyranny ensues when government rejects these property rights and usurps the control of all property to itself.
            You said ‘the subject is about access to a restroom for transgender’ people. Whilst this was the thrust of the article my first comment suggested that the real issue with transgender toilet policy is government assuming to itself powers that it must not have in a free society. I actually said that I think Macy’s should have the right to hire and fire whoever they like on their own property including firing a Christian who does not tow the company line promoting transgenderism. This is the subject of our discussion.
            I agree that transgender people should have access to restroom facilities, my issue is with how this should be accomplished. My solution is getting government out of the way of the free and voluntary exchange of property between citizens. Those who want to use their property in a way that promotes transgenderism are free to do so without any sanction or coercion from the government, whilst those who wish to use their property in a way that promotes biblical notions of gender are also free to do so without fear of government sanction.
            You say ‘Christians are not being blocked from using the restrooms, only transgender’. I am saying I am fighting against something far more serious to the WHOLE population, including transgender people, than restroom access. I am fighting for the principle that has given the West the greatest freedom, happiness and human flourishing in all the world in all of time, namely the inalienable rights of the individual, specifically property rights. So your question ‘what is a Christian losing by letting…’ is in fact far too narrow. It is not just Christians who stand to loose from your approval of the state forcing people to adopt your gender beliefs at the expense of private property rights, it is all of society, including transgender people! By standing against you, and other progressives who approve of Loretta Lynch forcing all private business to adopt transgender bathroom policy, I am not being bigoted or hateful, I am actually doing what I believe in the long run will most benefit all society, including transgender people.
            Regarding your attempt to associate your beliefs with the black civil rights movement and the abolition of slavery, your belief is actually the problem, not the solution. There would have been no slavery if government stuck to its actual role of protecting individual inalienable rights, i.e. the right to one’s own labour and life. Having a big gov that can violate property rights on a whim is the problem but progressives propose it as the solution. Racists and want-to-be despots are drawn to such power and once entrenched in this type of gov they can be as racist and totalitarian as their hearts desire. It was government laws that entrenched racism, segregation and slavery, inviolable property rights and the freedom to use one’s own labour as one pleases would have set the oppressed free.

  • agathoszoe

    If this is true (and I’m not sure the story has or includes all the facts), the employee could have (1) waited with the customer until the guy left the woman’s room; (2) taken the customer to another woman’s room and offered to stand guard; or (3) taken the woman and daughter to a family restroom, which hopefully that particular Macy’s had. The employee could even affirm the customers fears and concerns, agreed with their shared values, and expressed his disagreement with store policy, all the while adhearing to the policy. As Christians, we must deal with this ungodly culture with wisdom and conviction.

Inspiration
Lessons From a Stolen Bike
Alex Chediak
More from The Stream
Connect with Us