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]
    1•8 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 SquidOP
      2•8 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?

      • @[email protected]
        1•8 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+.

        • Flying SquidOP
          1•8 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.

          • @[email protected]
            1•8 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.