Key part of article:
The White House said that while it had not been able to block the flag proposal, it was “successful in defeating 50+ other policy riders attacking the LGBTQI+ community that Congressional Republicans attempted to insert into the legislation.”
They are going out of their way to attack queer people any way they can and if they really get the power they need to achieve it, there will be a genocide. Or at least a genocide far more noticeable than the current one going on, mostly directed at trans people.
The title should be that the government defeated 50+ proposals against lgbt.
The point is that they (GOP) throw so much shit at the wall that they know won’t succeed because eventually some things will stick. It’s not worth pointing out all the shit that fails. What gets in is worth talking about.
Exactly, although exact titles are required here, so that should have been the title of the article.
Sorry I wasn’t aware, yeah the article title is very misleading
Clickbait. The actual resolution prohibits the use of the funds being allocated from the new budget to be used on anything other than government related flags. This is just funding for flags, there’s no outright ban on pride flags.
Resolution Sauce (pg. 1000)
(b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be obligated or expended to fly or display a flag over a facility of the United States Department of State-
I would think that the “or display” part prohibits a public employee from raising the flag.
Everything before that states the funds allocated by the act can’t be used to fly or display a flag other than a government flag.
A public employee couldn’t spend embassy or facility money on a non-government flag, but I haven’t read anything about them spending their own money and still flying the flag.
I think it would have to be a separate flagpole that wasn’t constructed or maintained by the state.
The act of raising even a free flag would still be using government resources.
Right, but the public employee is being paid for by the funds that are covered by the act. Therefore if an employee raises the flag, funds are being used to display a non-state flag.
Edit: To be clear, I have not suggested that an employee of the state wouldn’t be allowed to purchase a flag. The way I read the act, an employee would not be allowed to raise a flag because they themselves are a resource paid for by the act.
Removed by mod
You have misunderstood what I wrote. I said nothing about an employee purchasing a flag, I said that they would not be permitted to raise one, as they are a resource that is paid for by the act.
I think it’s “asinine and childish” to be so rude, especially when it’s you that has made the mistake.
deleted by creator
The part that was relevant was the part I quoted in the body of my post.
Are they singling out LGBQT+? Or are they treating all non-governmental groups the same?
The former.
Where in the article does it say they’re singling out LGBQT+?
You do know what a pride flag is, yes?
The article says this applies to all non-governmental flags, not just the pride flag. I read the article and didn’t see anything singling out LGBQT+, but if I missed something I hope you’ll point out out.
If you had read the body of my post and the article, you would have seen that this was by far the least important thing discussed:
The White House said that while it had not been able to block the flag proposal, it was “successful in defeating 50+ other policy riders attacking the LGBTQI+ community that Congressional Republicans attempted to insert into the legislation.”
What do you think they’ll do if they get serious power?
None of the funds made available by the bill can be spent to fly or display flags other than the American flag and other eligible flags at U.S. State Department facilities, a rule that will last for the length of the funding bill, which expires on Sept. 30.
Does that mean an employee could buy a pride flag with their own money and raise it before clocking in? Or at least hang it elsewhere on the building? That provision sucks, but I at least hope it’ll lead to people finding silly workarounds.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Finally a good thing happening in America
- This isn’t a good thing.
- We don’t have a lot of American embassies in America.
/s
I always upvote Bandit Keith.
Maybe I don’t fully understand here. But the pride flag isn’t a country. So, to me it makes a bit of sense stating a mixed message. I’m not saying I’m against the cause. I am stating it opens it up to having other flags such as the don’t tread on me, or the flag of the southern rebellion, Jolly Rodger, or maybe a nice killdozer flag.
Embassies should be allowed to represent the values of their country’s citizens. These slippery slope arguments against pride flags never make any sense, embassy staff don’t tend to be confederate sympathizers or pirates or crazy libertarians
I hope one day we just look at the pride flag and say we don’t need that anymore because that judgment and stigma are gone. True freedom should be as simple as not actually caring if the person next to you has a different views.
Removed by mod
Nice counterargument there kiddo, how long did it take you to come up with that one?
deleted by creator
fuck off
