I have mixed opinions on the subject.
I believe that conformity within society is fairly important, and that the people who run businesses and such have the right to decide who works for them, and to run their businesses in such a way to attract and keep customers.
When it comes to things like sexual identity, fetishes, and extreme lifestyle choices, a lot of people defend these things and insist that discrimination is wrong, but at the same time if a lot of those people were trying to run a business they probably wouldn't feel the same way, if some employee was chasing away most of the customers by making them uncomfortable.
It's one of those issues where there isn't a perfect solution to the situation, which is why incidents like this persist.
My basic attitude is that an employer should have the right to determine what someone on their payroll does in the workplace. What they choose to do on their own time however is their own business, as long as it doesn't wind up directly having a bearing on the workplace.
Some adult who cannot be happy unless he's wearing a diaper filld with his own feces and nothing else for example, should not have that lifestyle choice catered to by a business because "it's just how he is, it's natural and normal for him". If he chooses to do that at home however, that's his own business, and someone shouldn't be fired if that kind of "adult baby" lifestyle is uncovered, assuming it is in no way becoming associated with the business.
The same applies to overt religious symbolism (wearing Turbans, visible cruicifixs, pentagrams, or whatever else) or demanding to be able to cross dress on the job instead of wearing the uniform and/or following the prescribed, presumably conservative, dress code.
Now, in some businesses operations are on a large enough scale where you can make certain allowances. Someone who has an extreme presentation can be allowed to work back of the house wearing a turban or whatever, and just not permitted into public areas. That's a fairly resonable compromise all told, despite people complaining about it. In cases of this sort, I think the amount of effort a company makes within it's resources to accomodate an employee matters, they cannot however expect businesses to commit suicide.
It's also important to understand consistincy as part of this arguement as well. See, if you start saying "well, it's okay for you to wear a Turban and display your faith" then it opens the door for someone else to say want to display a cruicifix or star of david. If one is accepted or denied, then you have some even nastier grounds for discrimination. You start letting everyone wear religious symbols, and then why can't people wear non-religious symbols? Does an "Insane Clown Posse" T-shirt count as a religious symbol to a Juggalo? How about the face paint?
In general I tend to be dismiss most claims of discrimination in the workplace when it comes down to an employer not making a singular exception that is being demanded due to the doors it opens. I think it's perfectly reasonable for an employer to establish a dress code that can include everything from style of dress, to hair style, to what kind of visible jewelery might be permitted, as long as they are consistant with it. You violate that policy, and yeah, that is grounds for being booted.
In the case of the incident in this article, I think there is more to the story. After all apparently this whole transexual thing was known since 2006 and just recently became an issue due to customer reaction. As I understand things, it seems to point towards people suddenly having an extreme reaction, and that is grounds for dismissal. Why your freaking out the customers is irrelevent, the business has a right to do what it needs to do in order to stay in business... and as things seem, they DID apparently try and find ways to compromise.
