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.

  • @[email protected]
    4•6 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.

    • @[email protected]
      2•6 months ago

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

    • @[email protected]
      0•6 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.

        • @[email protected]
          5•6 months ago

          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.