In a recent incident of open, hostile, aggressive discrimination against a transgender woman, a store clerk in a Texas Macy's attempted to bar a trans woman from entering a women's fitting room, claiming it was a violation of her Christian religion to allow the trans woman to do that (no specific scripture was cited). Macy's subsequently fired the clerk.
The store clerk, Natalie Johnson, is claiming a religious right to discriminate and suing Macy's for religious discrimination. She is not claiming a right to discriminate against trans people just because they are transgender. No, she is making a very specific point of wrapping her prejudice in religion. Fine. Let's take her position at face value and look at it.
There are only two approaches I can see to making such an argument: 1) that certain people have more rights to do whatever they want than others, or 2) that rights to engage in certain kinds discrimination supersede any rights of protection from that same discrimination. In the first approach, the only way this sales clerk can make her case is to deny the humanity and equal citizenship status of the transgender person she insists on treating unequally. That doesn't fly. She has no special, superior citizenship rights because she professes Christianity. Changing one's sex does not (at least legally) make one a second-class citizen and reduce one to having fewer rights and protections than others. It is reasonable to view both parties as equals in terms of rights and protections.
There actually are examples of the second argument, like the right to discriminate against someone for having been convicted of a felony supersedes the right of the felon to not suffer from discrimination for it. The question, then, is whether her claim of a religious right to discriminate supersedes the rights of protection for those against whom she discriminates. For this argument to have merit, we have to look at both the nature of the right to discriminate and the right of freedom from that same discrimination. We must understand both the right claimed and the discrimination perpetrated.
This clerk is claiming a religious right to discriminate. Here again, there are two ways to look at this: 1) being a member of her religion gives her the right to discriminate against anyone violating her religion, or 2) her religion commands her to discriminate against others (supposedly those who possess certain qualities or engage in certain taboo practices), making discrimination itself a protected religious practice.
The first perspective denies the other person's right to belong to a different religion, or not follow any religion at all. It is either a claim that her religion is superior to all other systems of belief, or it is a declaration of war between all religions in all corners of society. To ban a transgender person from entering a fitting room because your religion opposes it is no different from banning them for wearing or not wearing a yarmulke. That is clearly an act of religious discrimination. Claiming a right to engage in religious discrimination waves your right of protection from religious discrimination.
All that's left is the case where her religion specifically commands her to discriminate, she would be in violation of her own religion if she did not, and to stop her is a discrimination against her own religious practice. This is kind of like when a Hasidic Jewish man is assigned a seat on an airplane next to a strange woman, whom his religion forbids him to sit next to, and he refuses to do so. The problem is that the person against whom she discriminates is another American citizen possessing equal rights, presumably not of her faith, and the discrimination is conducted in a public setting outside the practice of her religion. Just as the Hasidic Jewish man cannot order the woman off the plane because his religion won't let him sit next to her, the sales clerk can't bar the trans woman from the fitting room because her religion doesn't tolerate trans women in fitting rooms (but I would be curious to see that scripture). It is up to each to reconcile their faith with the realities of life in a world with people of differing belief without burdening others. To either kick the woman off the plane or ban the trans woman from the dressing room is to discriminate against them because of the religious belief of another person, and that is quite simply religious discrimination. If your religion commands you to discriminate, then it is incumbent upon you to find a way to deal with that without discriminating against anyone else (like buying two plane tickets or not working in the clothing department).
What shocks me most is the need to write this essay at all. It is truly amazing to me that this claim that freedom of religion gives one the right to discriminate against another American citizen gets as much traction as it does. The point I am trying to make is so glaringly obvious that I am perpetually stunned that there is any need to make it. You do not have the right to force your religion on others. You do not have the right to discriminate against those who do not practice your religion. To discriminate against someone for not practicing your religion is religious discrimination. This sales clerk is demanding her right to practice religious discrimination, and she is saying it is religious discrimination against her to prevent her from doing it. How utterly oxymoronic.
This clerk has no case. Mucho kudos to Macy's for doing the right thing and firing her.
Chris Tina Bruce: Transgender Rights or Deviant Behavior?
This situation, however, should not be seen as a "religious" question, but one of "moral superiority." Do Christians really believe that they are superior to everyone else in the country, or even in the whole world?
I am an atheist. I've been leaning in that direction for some time, now, probably the last few decades. I was told by someone who claimed to be a "Christian" that she felt "sorry" for me to not believe in her god. Isn't that a good example of someone who believes that an atheist is inferior to a Christian? I'm not stupid, I'm just a non-believer. But because I don't believe in a god doesn't mean I'm not a "good" person.
Her hatred prohibits her from not only understanding others, but keeps her from progressing toward a better future where everyone is free to practive their religion, regardless of what that might be, and where every member of the LGBT community is treated with the same respect as others want to be treated.
http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/appeals-court-rejects-christian-students-bid-for-reversal-of-her-expulsion/39257?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
The Christian woman in this story simply does not have a case. You can believe as you wish to, but if that is going to interfere with your job, then find another.
Just because she is religious does not mean she gets to impose those beliefs upon others in a public setting. The fact remains, no matter the semantics of this "protection of or protection from" situation, the bottom line remains that she worked there, she knew the policies, she refused to follow them, and was insubordinate. Therefore, legally, she has no leg to stand on. Most religious discrimination policies say "reasonable accommodations" with regards to one's practiced faith. Last I checked, the ability to discriminate against customers and fellow employees with whom I disagree does NOT fall under the heading of "reasonable."
- Jon Stewart
Usually when a Christian in the western world complains about "persecution", it's when they get busted for trying to persecute OTHERS.
Sorta like "They won't let me picket funerals of gay HIV victims with my 'God Hates You Know Whats' sign, so they are persecuting me because I'm Christian!"
Or "they won't let me teach my religious origin myth as truth to everyone else's kids in science classes in public schools, so they're discriminating against me because of my faith."
Or "they won't let me spread the Good News of Jesus Christ at work, so they're persecuting me for my religion!"
To those who want the government to be Fundamentalist Christian (or whatever) and to force it on all citizens, "freedom of religion" means freedom to follow their religion or suffer.
If you want a taste of such a theocracy, visit Iran. Or Afghanistan under the Taliban.
Jefferson tried to finesse this divide. So, in a manner of speaking, did Jesus, when he said "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" (Mathew 22:21). Yet starting with the Moral Majority, a new activist political Christianity emerged: Democracy would now be subject to a form of Christian theocracy, laws, judges, and politicians would now be subject to a test of religious correctness.
In a sense, this woman's claim is not about her religious freedom per se, rather it is a test against what the ever evolving grand experiment that is American democracy will be. Our Constitution is a delicate balance between force and freedom. The Republic is much changed since the Founding Fathers passed it into our hands - what will it be when we leave it to our children? Right or wrong or something in-between, both women are part of that never ending question.
They do not even seem to see the irony.
Boggles the mind.
The endless proselytizing by the christians is an affront to decent people everywhere.
It's also yet another indication of their arrogance, intolerance, and self-centeredness.
I understand that some people identify as women while remaining physically male, but aren't dressing rooms segregated by anatomy rather than identity? And if so, isn't the label misleading?
Now, do you have a right to expect some degree of privacy while trying on clothes? Certainly. That expectation of privacy is not defined by what you or anyone who might violate that privacy has between their legs. I would expect a store to have dressing room doors to close securely and provide a visual barrier to observation from anyone, regardless of there intimate anatomy. The only anatomy that matters in this situation are eyes, and most people, regardless of their sex or gender identity, have those.
And transpeople have money too, and have the right to try stuff on before buying too. And making them go to the changerooms in the other section is ridiculous (and possibly dangerous for them).
I actually did see a transwoman trying on clothes near me in a non-Macy's store and no one raised a fuss. Mind you, I'm not in Texas... *ducking*
She hardly looked at anyone else, just went about her business. If anything, they're usually more scared of something bad happening to them or their privacy or rights being violated than genetic women, especially if they don't "pass" very well yet.
I was pointing out by this woman's logic and her 'freedom' to do as she pleases because she feels her religion provides her some sort of superiority to do so, that those men on 9/11 had they been American citizens would have been within their rights as well. Again, in HER world, with HER rules as you have stated that she felt she had the right to do.
Where you get that I was referring to you or in any way suggesting that was what you were advocating.
Might I suggest... in the future... take a deep breath, not all of us are out to get you. Some are actually on your side, and support your point of view as I was doing in my comment.
When you fight everyone, you set yourself up for a war you cannot win. Though, I will just go with, "When you argue with someone on the internet... your both losers."
So. My apologies for your misunderstanding what I was saying.