Either way, personally I'd rather lose my job because my company agrees with my morals than work for a place that is discriminatory.
Wrong, a business/ company cannot discriminate. It is people who are capable of discrimination. How-ever, this forced acceptance policy has and is backfiring badly, this isn't like the boycotts in the past, because this is an issue that many people are taking much more seriously and scrutinizing it with a fiber-glass micro-scope.
We want real answers to our real questions, which is why we're continuing to press the issue until we get it, and that's the bottom line.
Unless an actual incident occurs (i.e. harassment, assault, someone photographing under stalls, etc.), security is unlikely to get involved.
Right, they respond after the fact of an incident of an assault. Meaning, too late, someone already exploited & abused the policy, and all you're ever going to tell the victim is "tough shit, get over it, and fuck you, you discriminatory bastard".
We can each only answer you for our own store and for store policy. In my store, someone using a bathroom wouldn't qualify as an incident to security regardless of gender because they aren't going to question someone's gender identity.
The bold & italicized are the problem. Much the same as it should be suspicious behavior for somebody caught on camera tucking an item on the shelf under their shirt, a man entering the ladies facilities should also be considered suspicious behavior.
Not questioning somebodies gender identity is an issue especially since you have no policy to have somebody watching the bathroom & fitting rooms in case of an incident if an employee could be hired for this, half of our problem would vanish. You know how fancy restaurants hire employees with a towel to stand in the bathroom to help you dry your hands & give you scented towelettes? Your company could do something similar, and I would demand hiring security as well as remodeling the areas of the store so that security can sit & wait, kinda like what people do at draw-bridges who lift those barriers with a button to allow vehicles to go through, except without the barrier. Just simply have a booth installed for security to sit in. They don't have to stop & ask for anybodies gender identity, they are just there to watch and listen for any trouble as well as BE ALLOWED AND BE ENABLED & ENCOURAGED TO BE SUSPICIOUS OF A DUDE WHO IS OBVIOUSLY A DUDE ENTERING THE GOD DAMNED LADIES ROOMS.
Because otherwise that employee hired for security isn't allowed to be justifiably suspicious of any individual when the behavior of entering a facility just for men or women alone should raise suspicion in the first place. It should be in the policy that employees hired for security reserve the right to profile anybody who they happen to suspect of anything that seems off. This would eliminate the other half of the problem I have, do this and you're 100% covered, you get my guaranteed stamp of approval & a five star rating from me. Because this tells me that it guarantees that employees hired for security cannot have their employment terminated due to an individual that they suspect of suspicious behavior, should that suspected individual attempt to turn around & file a lawsuit against the company claiming a civil rights violation & discrimination.
I will not stop asking these questions until these questions are answered with an answer that is satisfactory to my concerns.