Did the company offer a non-public facing role, or any other kind of accomodations before jumping to firing? From what I see from the article there were complaints by co-workers but no intention on the company's end to remediate the situation without firing her. The company should make sure her and her co-worker feel secure in their work.

Sure, let's say certain people cannot do certain jobs (lots to unpack there, but whatever), but does that mean they have to go hungry and be humiliated because of a medical condition? Because what you seem to imply is that it's justified that someone lost their livelihood because they were presenting a problem to the company and their co-workers, which i'm sure is great for someone who's already struggling with medical issues and won't impede their capacity to find other employment or improve their medical situation at all.