Thursday, October 17, 2019

Why isn’t the LGBTQ+ community protected through job security?


Tuesday October 8th, the Supreme Court questioned the protection of gay and transgender discrimination in the workplace. There is no law preventing the LGBTQ+ community from being fired based on their identity. The justices heard two hours of testimonies and arguments for three cases in which two gay workers and one transgender worker were fired by their employers. The three workers sued, claiming the action was an act of unlawful discrimination.
The court’s liberal justices agreed with the arguments that gay and transgender workers are protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The law bans employers from discrimination against their employees in the instance of sex, race, color, nationality, and religion. Some justices appeared skeptical while others sympathized with the plaintiffs’ claims.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch implied that one’s sex sometimes contributes to the factor of firing someone of a certain sexual orientation. Gorsuch says, “in what linguistic formulation would one say that sex - biological gender - has nothing to do with what happened in this case?” In turn, he later suggested that the court might be overstepping its boundaries and should just leave it to Congress to legislate on the subject; saying it would cause a “massive social upheaval.”
The Trump Administration argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not include sexual orientation or gender identity. A legal fight back in 2015, focused on the meaning of “sex” in Title VII. Plaintiffs argued that consequently, discrimination against workers who are gay or transgender is illegal. Liberal justices seemed to appear skeptical of the arguments made by the Trump Administration’s lawyer. Supporters of LGBTQ+ rights, protested outside the courthouse while, a smaller group of opposing members, stood there too. Ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would give gay and transgender workers better protection and a ruling against them would mean that those workers would not be protected and still be subject to the discriminatory treatment of their employers.
Read this article and answer the following questions.

1)  on the evidence given in the article, do you believe the justices will rule in favor of the plaintiffs or not? Explain.
2) Which justice’s argument do you agree with the most and why?
3) Has there ever been an instance when you have been treated unfairly? When and why do you think it happened to you?
4) If the law is upheld then how do you think it will affect our community in the long run? And if it isn’t?

Friday, October 4, 2019

Charlie Baker Vaping Ban, Was It A Good Idea?

Last Tuesday, Governor Charlie Baker took action ordering a 4-month ban on the sale of all vaping products in Massachusetts. Charlie’s decisions comes after a public health emergency, which brings concern to the risk and injury of smoking (vaping). The ban will end on January 25th and the governor could decide to extend it if needed. Even of the sell from online stores is prohibited. This ban will give time for the medical community and federal officials time to investigate the nine deaths caused by vaping. Dr. Alicia Casey, a pediatric at the Boston Children Hospital says teens could suffer permanent lung damage after vaping and an FDA spokeswoman said that they were “working tirelessly” to investigate the vaping-related lung illnesses. Geoffrey Yalenezian, chief operating officer of Brennan’s Smoke Shop a local smokeshop says “My chin hit the floor” after all of his eight smoke shops were shut down due to the inability to make a profit. Many other local shops could be crushed by this ban and wouldn't be able to afford for themselves and their families. Although there are many health risks of vaping its people's jobs to sell them for a living. State lawmakers are already pushing separate bills that would permanently ban all flavors and types of e-cigarettes. This is a small step for banning vaping everywhere around the world. Read (This Article) Boston Globe and then post a thoughtful comment that answers the following questions.

1.     Do you agree with Gov. Baker's 4 month ban and why or why not?
2.     If you were a small vape shop owner, what would do in this case - wait it out or close permanently and find something new?
3.     Have you ever been near someone that was vaping and try and hold your breath? If so, why did you do this?

4.     What do you think the future of vaping will be like? Is it good or bad?

“Baker Declares Public Health Emergency, Orders 4-Month Ban on All Vaping Products - The Boston Globe.” BostonGlobe.Com, 2019, www.bostonglobe.com/news/marijuana/2019/09/24/governor-baker-make-vaping-announcement-amid-spate-lung-illnesses/o8sO6mf3GOmX4mOpLLtcEL/story.html. Accessed 2 Oct. 2019.

Case Involving Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn: Dropped

Recently the Department of Justice, specifically Attorney General William Barr, who was appointed by President Donald Trump,   has decided...