Department of Public Works employee Eric Batman claims that having to see a Progress Pride flag flying outside the department’s Alhambra, California, headquarters during the month of June effectively forces him to “celebrate, recognize, and solemnize conduct and actions that he views as sin” in conflict with his sincerely held Christian religious beliefs, according to a lawsuit filed in March by anti-LGBTQ+ evangelical nonprofit the Liberty Counsel.
I kind of have to take the plaintiff’s side. The government shouldn’t be flying pride flags any more than they should be installing Nativity scenes. This isn’t about agreeing or disagreeing with the opinion being expressed, but about whether the government should be expressing an opinion at all.
And really all he asked for was to work remotely for the month the flags were up, not to have them removed. I think that actually might fall within the “reasonable accommodation” laws he’s invoking here.
Why are gay people an opinion?
We are not an opinion, but I don’t think that’s really a fair summary of my position anyway.
How is a pride flag an opinion is a pretty fair question to this statement. You compare it to an opinion, so it must be comparable right?
All flags are an expression of opinion. Even the pride flag has different versions that include or exclude different sub-cultures and allies.
The main issue would be proving seeing a pride flag “forces” him to “celebrate, recognize, and solemnize” anything LGBTQIA+. By that standard, a government employee wearing a cross necklace would be grounds for any non-Christian to sue for the same reasons. Insanely slippery slope.
This is a case where it’s the government that’s wearing the proverbial cross necklace, not another employee.
Haha what? One is a celebrating diversity and the other is religion.
Neither are a governmental function. I think that’s the operative comparison to be made here.
Gotta WFH lunch room is not kosher, there’s pork in the lunch room, etc…