The short synopsis is that Steve Stanton has been a long time employee of the City of Largo Fl. Recently, Steve announced plans to transition to live as Susan and was promptly terminated by the city executive who decided, apparently, that being transgender was the equivalent of a lobotomy that would render Susan unable to carry out her job.
Of course, most of this is coming from the same kind of religiously-inspired ignorance that spawns legislation like Bill 208 in Alberta.
I went digging around the dark side of the blogosphere, taking a look at what some of the wingnuts were saying about transsexualism in general, and it's not a pleasant picture to look at. Perhaps because they got bored trashing Gays and Lesbians, but the nuttier clowns have started going after transsexuals as well - smearing them in all sorts of nasty ways.
I'll start off with "Americans For Truth", who posted this screed about Julie Nemecek.
If your first concern is protecting the welfare of teenage college students, the only good and noble reaction is to be firmly critical of the bizarre political agenda embodied by Mr. Nemecek’s demands and immovably intolerant of the threat that harmful agenda poses to young people.
First of all, Julie Nemecek has been living as Julie for over a year before she was fired. The author is being deliberately disrespectful of Julie's status by referring to her as "Mr.". This is a classic attack that the religious right have adopted - attacking the person by disrespecting them personally.
The second part is the immediate assertion that a transitioning transsexual is a "threat" somehow. Of course, they don't define what the threat is, and I must confess I find it pretty hard to imagine how someone transitioning between genders is a "threat" to anybody.
"Good and noble" justifies firing someone because you do not understand them? The insanity goes further, claiming:
The bleeding heart “tolerance” crowd insists that Spring Arbor must surrender its allegedly antiquated Christian values and instead concede to, thus giving formal recognition and legitimacy to, the demands of one emotionally disturbed employee’s obvious mental illness.
Ummm...last I checked, Christian scripture is amazingly silent about transsexuals - probably because the concept of a medically assisted gender transition didn't exist until the mid-20th century AD! As for it being a "mental illness", I think you would find most mental health professionals would see it quite differently (at least those who practice in the areas of gender and sexuality that have made a serious study of the topic!).
I won't even begin to address the myriad misconceptions that AFTAH's articles work from - I could write an entire book on the subject, and that's with my relatively limited knowledge and a bit of research.
Perhaps most laughable is this article which attempts to link transgender identity to "paganism" (without even defining what paganism they are referring to), in an effort to show how it is "unchristian". Considering how much of "christian ritual" is directly lifted from, or lain over, pagan traditions that were predominant in the late Roman Empire, I'm amazed at the utter dishonesty of these accusations.
Fundamentally, there are so many bad assumptions in this article that any conclusions drawn by it fall into the category of syllogistic error. More or less, the author seems to argue that because sexuality was richly reflected in pre-christian religious ritual, essentially any "sexual variance" is clearly "pagan", and therefore "anti-christian".
The syllogism goes like this:
Assertion: Pagan ritual included sex.
Assertion: Christian ritual excludes sex.
Assertion: Gays, Lesbians and transgender people are "sexually variant" in the behaviour.
Assertion: Paganism is anti-Christian
Therefore: GLBT people are pagan
Therefore: Being part of the GLBT community is anti-Christian.
Not a lot different from:
Assertion: Ghandi was an Indian
Assertion: Indians are men
Assertion: Beethoven was a man
Therefore: Beethoven was an Indian.
*** Which is obviously so incorrect as to be bad comedy.
The conclusions these twits draw are astonishing in their stupidity. Frankly, any argument that starts from a false assumption is guaranteed to be incorrect. LaBarbera continues to repeat and demonstrate this with his insane postings.
It seems to me that many of these so-called "christians" have forgotten the underlying ethos of even the Old Testament - namely the notion of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I wonder if they have really thought about that.
(Of course, more cynically, it's really all about power, and these clods are like the schoolyard goons I remember from Junior High - all about beating everyone around them into submission)