183
submitted 9 months ago by FlyingSquid@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.

all 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Cosmicomical@lemmy.world 49 points 9 months ago

The title should be that the government defeated 50+ proposals against lgbt.

[-] some_guy 37 points 9 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.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

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

[-] Cosmicomical@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Sorry I wasn't aware, yeah the article title is very misleading

[-] Smacks@lemmy.world 24 points 9 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-

[-] mypasswordistaco@iusearchlinux.fyi 5 points 9 months ago

I would think that the "or display" part prohibits a public employee from raising the flag.

[-] Smacks@lemmy.world 4 points 9 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.

[-] BowtiesAreCool@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

I think it would have to be a separate flagpole that wasn’t constructed or maintained by the state.

[-] ElderWendigo@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago

The act of raising even a free flag would still be using government resources.

[-] mypasswordistaco@iusearchlinux.fyi 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 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.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

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

[-] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 months ago

Are they singling out LGBQT+? Or are they treating all non-governmental groups the same?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago
[-] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

Where in the article does it say they're singling out LGBQT+?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

You do know what a pride flag is, yes?

[-] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 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.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 9 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?

[-] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

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+.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Got it. Republicans are very sympathetic to queer people and only want the best for them. That's the important thing to remember.

[-] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 9 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.

this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2024
183 points (92.6% liked)

News

23659 readers
2908 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS