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.

  • Telodzrum
    324·
    7 months ago
    1. This isn’t a good thing.
    2. We don’t have a lot of American embassies in America.
    • Vej
      106·
      7 months ago

      Maybe I don’t fully understand here. But the pride flag isn’t a country. So, to me it makes a bit of sense stating a mixed message. I’m not saying I’m against the cause. I am stating it opens it up to having other flags such as the don’t tread on me, or the flag of the southern rebellion, Jolly Rodger, or maybe a nice killdozer flag.

      • rbesfe
        95·
        7 months ago

        Embassies should be allowed to represent the values of their country’s citizens. These slippery slope arguments against pride flags never make any sense, embassy staff don’t tend to be confederate sympathizers or pirates or crazy libertarians

        • Vej
          36·
          7 months ago7 months ago

          I hope one day we just look at the pride flag and say we don’t need that anymore because that judgment and stigma are gone. True freedom should be as simple as not actually caring if the person next to you has a different views.

          • rbesfe
            32·
            7 months ago

            Nice counterargument there kiddo, how long did it take you to come up with that one?