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.

    • @some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      36•3 months ago

      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.

    • Flying Squid
      OP
      8•3 months ago

      Exactly, although exact titles are required here, so that should have been the title of the article.

  • @Smacks@lemmy.world
    26•3 months ago

    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-

      • @Smacks@lemmy.world
        6•3 months ago

        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.

        • @mypasswordistaco@iusearchlinux.fyi
          5•3 months ago

          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.

    • Flying Squid
      OP
      2•3 months ago

      The part that was relevant was the part I quoted in the body of my post.

              • @Ajen@sh.itjust.works
                2•3 months ago

                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.

                • Flying Squid
                  OP
                  2•3 months ago

                  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?

  • @VeganCheesecake
    16•3 months ago

    Forbes says:

    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.