Are Hot Firefighters a Protected Class?
Added 2024-10-09 04:00:06 +0000 UTCIt's T3BE43! First, Heather gives us the answer to last week's question about the 6th amendment right to a jury trial, and then we get a fun question involving an issue not talked about enough: discrimination against hot firefighters.
Patrons, submit your answers below! But also, feel free to double up and submit on reddit.com/r/openargs
Comments
I know I promised to estoppel but this one dragged me back in because the question is so weird. I think the question's explicit statement that he's suing under the fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause is an important tip-off that this relevant. A would require strict scrutiny, but I'm pretty sure I remember someone saying that only applies to fundamental rights (which being a firefighter isn't) or protected classes (race, religion, etc.), so I can't see it applying even though it feels better than B. Equally, B is tricky to choose, because the question calls out 'all first responders' and the answer stem only says 'firefighters'. Nevertheless, C and D both seem like bullshit to me so I've got to choose a yes answer and this is the closest one for me. I get that the city wants to have firefighters available for emergencies, the ordinance doesn't seem to be rationally related to that interest. This ordinance discriminates against first responders and I feel like they could just, say, limit second jobs to a certain number of hours per week or rostering first responders so there is always someone to be on call during emergencies. How would he go on holiday, or take a day off? I'm sure Mike's great and all, but there must be other firefighters so he can go get undressed in front of a camera on a Wednesday or whatever. What the hell, I can't help myself. A sexy acrostic. Scrutinising the letter of the law, Examining the amendment and more, Xploring the reasons, I have to say, Yes, Mike can take his shirt off for pay.
Dann de Grand Pre
2024-10-14 10:05:06 +0000 UTCGorsuch says hot firefighters are Over Ruled and agrees with me that the answer is A using the vibes basis level of scrutiny.
Cheers to The Onion, the greatest media outlet in the history of humankind
2024-10-12 01:41:01 +0000 UTCI'm not a law-talking' guy, but: • D seems like nonsense; even if he's an at-will employee of the calendar company, it's at the will of the calendar company, not the Oceania council, so it should be irrelevant. That income source has a value that can't be zeroed out by the council, thus depriving him of it would require due process. • B should also be eliminated; the council have an at-least-arguably-reasonable justification for restricting other employment, plus the restriction also applies to other emergency response personnel such as paramedics, not just firefighters. • C would be possible since as I just mentioned, there's a rational justification for restrictions, except... • The answer is A, because the restrictions they've imposed are not the least burdensome restrictions that are reasonably practicable. Mike probably isn't involved in calendar shoots very often, so a conflict isn't even likely to come up, but even if the calendar work were pretty steady part-time, he could just make an arrangement that in case of a disaster that required his firefighting capabilities, he'd have to leave the calendar shoot (which would likely end up cancelled anyway in such circumstances). The council certainly couldn't prohibit him from ever going out of town, which would arguably make him less available than a second job would. So final answer, A, yes, Mike prevails, because the policy is not the least restrictive necessary to accomplish the council's reasonable objective.
Graydon Armstrong
2024-10-09 06:06:35 +0000 UTCAbsolutely humbled and honored to be the first official Thomas' Favorite Patron Name! I'm adding that to my resume now
A string of unpronounceable profanity
2024-10-09 04:34:21 +0000 UTC
