Some people are so fragile. Fox News of course is saying feds have banned non US flags, of course lying to their viewers about what is actually happening.

    • WooChooTrain@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wow the description of the flag in the flag code is amusingly vague: “The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field.”

      According to the wikipedia page, the exact specification is given in “Executive Order 10834,” but strictly it only applies to flags made for and by the federal government.

      • Steeve@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well I’m not the federal government, so this is my flag now!

        Also I’m Canadian… don’t ask why I need an American flag

    • Wolfric82@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s the only reason they do it. Continue the culture war over here so you don’t see me doing nothing over here.

    • Cylinsier@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Pointless culture wars are all they have left because without those, some of their voters might calm down long enough to notice they haven’t delivered on a single promise to make the lives of regular Americans better when they are in power for decades.

    • ZapBeebz@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I gebuinenly would not be surprised if they wrote in an exception for the confederate dishtowel flag

  • Ok. They going to remove the thin blue line flag from all the police cruisers as well? Yes that is state vs fed. Im just taking this to its logical (unlikely) conclusion. Rule for thee not for me and all that.

  • Square Singer@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    I used to believe that the state of US politics is down to a shoddy education system. But by now I believe it’s down to so many politicians and their followers over there being on a pure chaotic evil alignment.

    They are just out to screw over the country and the people on purpose.

    • THX-1138@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The name of the game is to keep the masses fighting over and focused on ephemeral shit that doesn’t matter. Books, gays, lesbians, queers, trans, wokeness, CRT, religious tolerance, etc., This way the vast majority of the minority in this country are up in arms over what they see as threats to their way of life, as good god fearing christians. The real intent though is to keep them blind to how they’re being used, abused, sold out, turned into a product, stripped of their rights, and incrementally silenced, all so the people they put in power can make a few extra bucks while rat fucking a system that is engineered from the ground up to reward lying, cheating, demogoguery, and inciting division. The worst part is that this busted ass system is so entwined in the essence of what it is to be “'Murican” that questioning it, looking for logic, or even commenting on the hypocrisy in the design is enough to get violently assaulted in some parts.

      Rome 2.0 is burning, and our leaders have convinced us that all of us fiddling is best way to deal with it

  • Saitama@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m glad that he’s spending his time on solving this very urgent and extremely important matter instead of trivial legislation such as budgets, federal investment in his state, etc.

  • DevCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    First Amendment coming in on a strafing run in 3…2…1…

    I suppose this would also mean removing any religious banners from government-owned buildings and spaces being rented by religious groups.

    • dog@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      of course that will be their exception. crosses, bible verses, depictions of jesus, are all okay lest it be an attack on christianity 🙄

      • donworrybehappi@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Religion is exempt!”

        “That’s great, let me just display this copy of the Qur’an over here”

        “Not that one, just our religion!”

        • dog@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          for 👏 real 👏 thank you xD imo, that’s even worse. i’ll never understand zealous “christians” who invalidate other religions. throwing stones with glass skulls, really

    • wavebeam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve always felt like an asshole for having this thought, but they look a lot like isis flags

  • GrandmasterFrank@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The One Flag For All Act ensures that the American Flag never gets sidelined for culture wars and political points

    then:

    Exemptions are made for: Prisoner of War (POW) flags

    because obviously to virtue signal about the American military isn’t about scoring political points

    Did you know that in 2019 the National POW/MIA Flag Act was signed into law, requiring the POW/MIA flag to be flown on certain federal properties, including the U.S. Capitol Building, on all days the U.S. flag is flown?

  • KawaiiMathematician@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I really don’t have a problem with this. No government should support any private causes, no matter their nature, with the exception of international treaties and the like, such as NATO or the UN. I think it makes sense to ban flags representing personal opinions from federal buildings. LGBTQ+ rights must be protected by every rational humanitarian government, but it’s rather unprofessional for a government entity to fly a flag of solidarity next to a national flag in my opinion.

    • rustyspoon@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      What is a ‘private cause’ though? Because to me this feels like a very public issue. While it may seem like LGBT rights have only strengthened each year, there is currently an unprecedented level of effort being put towards disenfranchising and stifling queer and trans communities. Even if you’re not part of those communities yourself, it’s a near certainty that somebody you know and care about is. There’s a very large and diverse subset of the American populace who is being targeted by these anti-lgbt actions.

      During the civil rights movement I would have had no problem with the white house flying a flag in solidarity with black Americans, and I don’t have a problem with them flying the pride flag now.

      • SevenSwell@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        It drives me crazy that LGBT people existing is considered some kind of “political agenda” by some people.

      • MrGoodBright@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Private is probably not the correct word, but flying the LGBTQ+ flag is probably a for of capital ‘S’ Speech, i.e. the thing the 1st amendement of the US Bill of rights is supposed to protect.

        To what extent should government institutions engage is Speech is a question without an easy answer.

        In this case the LGBTQ+ flag represents, in part, common sense civil liberties and protections for a community. Unequivocally a good thing, and to say otherwise is bigotry.

        However the undeniable goodness of the Speech does not necessarily mean it is a type of speech we want government institutions to engage in. One method to illustrate this is to replace the clearly positive flag with a clearly negative one, say a nazi flag.

        I’d expect most people here would have a problem with the dmv flying a nazi flag.

        So we simply say that government institutions can only fly good flags. The problem is someone has to decide which flags are good. It may seem obvious which is which, but unless we put it to a vote, we’ll need a committee or a single person to make the call. And some people are evil, and would falsely claim the Nazi flag is the good one, and now we’re in a bad spot again.

        So like all things there’s a lot of annoying nuance to be dealt with and sucks when it should be easy to just allow good supportive speech.

        • CleoTheWizard@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think that you’re somewhat asking the government to be apolitical when you do that. Every flag is speech, even the American flag is speech. The government constantly speaks to us.

          I’d argue that the government should be allowed it’s speech. Every time the government stops speaking to you is when bad things happen.