New government spending bill bans U.S. embassies from flying Pride flag
New government spending bill bans U.S. embassies from flying Pride flag
The prohibition was one of many side issues included in the mammoth $1.2 trillion package to fund the government through September.
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
No. An employee using his paycheck to buy a flag is not the same as using government funds.
To think otherwise is asinine and childish, but I don't hold it above you.
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.
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.
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?
You're moving the goal posts, and drawing associations without any evidence. This thread is about the article being clickbait, which it is. This is an omnibus spending bill, so the existence of anti-LGBQT+ riders on the same bill doesn't make this specific clause anti-LGBQT+.
Got it. Republicans are very sympathetic to queer people and only want the best for them. That's the important thing to remember.
Just to recap: nothing in the article you posted supports your point, except for a self-aggrandizing quote from some politician, so you're resorting to sarcasm.