Blue cities adopt Pride flags as official symbols in bid to skirt red-state laws
Two Democrat-run cities in the Rockies are skirting state laws dictating which flags can be flown on government property, according to The Associated Press – and are granting particular attention to the LGBTQ Pride flag.
Utah and Idaho both have laws on the books barring government buildings from flying most flags, save for a select few – like the American flag and military flags. Utah's law went into effect Wednesday.
UTAH BANS LGBTQ+ PRIDE FLAGS, MAGA FLAGS, OTHER UNAPPROVED FLAGS IN GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, SCHOOLS
In an eleventh-hour bid to circumvent the coming restrictions, Salt Lake City adopted four flags Tuesday: its existing flag, as well as modified versions of the Progress Pride, Transgender Pride and Juneteenth flags – each including the city's signature sego lily.
They were presented by Mayor Erin Mendenhall for adoption via ordinance, explained her spokesperson, Andrew Wittenberg, to Fox News Digital.
"My sincere intent is not to provoke or cause division," Mendenhall said, according to The AP.
"My intent is to represent our city's values and honor our dear diverse residents who make up this beautiful city and the legacy of pain and progress that they have endured," she continued.
Violators of the Utah law, which Republican Gov. Spencer Cox, allowed to pass without his signature, can be fined $500 per day. The law's supporters maintain that it's a matter of institutions maintaining political neutrality.
STATE DEPARTMENT BLOCKS PRIDE, BLM FLAGS FROM EMBASSIES, OUTPOSTS WITH 'ONE FLAG POLICY'
"This law is about keeping government spaces neutral and welcoming to all," Republican House Speaker Mike Schultz said. "Salt Lake City should focus on real issues, not political theatrics."
Meanwhile, in Boise, Idaho, Mayor Lauren McLean issued a proclamation last week retroactively designating the pride flag as an official city flag.
McLean has maintained that the Idaho law is not sound – and has even flown the pride flag over City Hall after it was enacted.
McLean has yet to respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
McLean and Mendenhall spoke Monday night to discuss their cities' respective plans, though Wittenberg stressed to Fox News Digital that there was "no prior or additional coordination" between the cities' officials.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
DOGE caucus leader says Elon Musk made a 'massive exaggeration' about spending cuts
A key DOGE-minded lawmaker in Congress calling out Elon Musk amid his feud with Trump. "Most everybody knew Elon was exaggerating to what he could do," said Rep. Blake Moore of Utah. He also said Musk was "parroting false claims" about the "Big Beautiful Bill." Shortly after the feud between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk hit its apex on Thursday, a key DOGE-minded lawmaker in Congress had some pointed words about the world's richest man. "Most everybody knew Elon was exaggerating to what he could do," Republican Rep. Blake Moore of Utah told reporters outside the Capitol. "He was claiming finding $4 billion a day in cuts he was going to get. One time, he said $2 trillion, he was going to find." "It's a massive exaggeration, and I think people are recognizing that now," Moore said. The Utah Republican is one of the three co-leaders of the House DOGE caucus, a bipartisan group of lawmakers who had hoped to support Musk's cost-cutting efforts. The caucus met a handful of times at the beginning of the year, and leaders previously told BI that they intended to compile a report of potential cost-saving measures for DOGE at the end of the first quarter of this year. That didn't end up happening, in part because the White House DOGE Office ultimately had little interaction with the caucus. One Democratic member declared the group to be "dead" last month. "We've always been a little frustrated that there was such limited interaction," Moore said on Thursday. "We couldn't really identify where we were to lean in, and we had a ton of folks ready to support it, but there just wasn't that interaction." Musk did not respond to a request for comment. Moore said that he wanted to pursue cuts to federal spending through the bipartisan government funding process, saying that there are "plenty of Democrats that recognize there's waste in our government." GOP leaders have said they'll pursue DOGE cuts both through that process and through "rescission" packages, the first of which is set to be voted on in the House next week. The first package, which includes cuts to public broadcasting and foreign aid, is $9.4 billion, just a fraction of the cost savings that Musk once predicted. "It's definitely kind of over-promising, under-delivering," Moore said. Musk's public feud with Trump began last week, when the tech titan began criticizing the "Big Beautiful Bill" that Republicans are trying to muscle through Congress. The bill is projected to increase the deficit by trillions of dollars, though Republicans have argued that those forecasts do not account for the economic growth that might be spurred by the bill. That feud boiled over on Tuesday, with the two men engaging in a war of words on their respective social media platforms. "When I saw Musk start posting, just parroting false claims about the tax reconciliation bill, it was clear something's amiss," Moore said. "And so it escalated, yeah. It escalated very quickly." Read the original article on Business Insider
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
WorldPride attendees to march through Washington in defiance of Trump
By Daniel Trotta WASHINGTON (Reuters) -LGBTQ+ people from around the world will march through the streets of Washington on Saturday in a joyful celebration meant to show defiance to President Donald Trump's rollback of queer rights. The parade route will come within one block of the White House grounds in one of the final main events of the weeks-long WorldPride celebration. On Sunday a more political event, dubbed a rally and march, will convene at the Lincoln Memorial, a revered space in the U.S. civil rights movement as the site of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech in 1963. Events will play out in the U.S. capital in the wake of the Trump administration's measures to curtail LGBTQ+ rights. The Republican president has issued executive orders limiting transgender rights, banning transgender people from serving in the armed forces, and rescinding anti-discrimination policies for LGBTQ+ people as part of a campaign to repeal diversity, equity and inclusion programs. While proponents of DEI consider it necessary to correct historic inequities, the White House has described it as a form of discrimination based on race or gender, and said its transgender policy protects women by keeping transgender women out of shared spaces. Moreover, the White House said it has appointed a number of openly gay people to cabinet posts or judgeships, and noted that the Trump administration took steps to decriminalize homosexuality globally, and that its 2019 initiative "Ending the HIV Epidemic" aimed to cut HIV infections by 90% by 2030. "The President is honored to serve all Americans," White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement. Event organizers said they were unaware of any counterprotests or anti-LGBTQ+ demonstrations planned for Saturday or Sunday. The National Park Service, however, has decided to fence off Dupont Circle, a popular public space, until Sunday night at the request of the U.S. Park Police, which said closure was necessary to "secure the park, deter potential violence, reduce the risk of destructive acts and decrease the need for extensive law enforcement presences." Capital Pride Alliance, which is organizing WorldPride events, said it was "frustrated and disappointed" at the closure. "This beloved landmark is central to the community that WorldPride intends to celebrate and honor. It's much more than a park, for generations it's been a gathering place for DC's LGBTQ+ community, hosting First Amendment assemblies and memorial services for those we lost to the AIDS epidemic and following tragic events like the Pulse nightclub shooting," the alliance said.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Religion cases spark both unanimity and division at Supreme Court
Religious rights are sparking both unanimity and deep divisions on the Supreme Court this term, with one major decision still to come. On Thursday, all nine justices sided with Catholic Charities Bureau in its tax fight with Wisconsin. But weeks earlier, the court's 4-4 deadlock handed those same religious interests a loss by refusing to greenlight the nation's first religious charter school. Now, advocates are turning their attention to the other major religion case still pending this term, which concerns whether parents have the First Amendment right to opt-out their children from instruction including books with LGBTQ themes. 'The court has been using its Religion Clause cases over the past few years to send the message that everything doesn't have to be quite so polarized and quite so everybody at each other's throats,' said Mark Rienzi, the president and CEO of Becket, a religious legal group that represents both the parents and Catholic Charities. The trio of cases reflect a new burst of activity on the Supreme Court's religion docket, a major legacy of Chief Justice John Roberts' tenure. Research by Lee Epstein, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, found the Roberts Court has ruled in favor of religious organizations over 83 percent of the time, a significant jump from previous eras. The decisions have oftentimes protected Christian traditions, a development that critics view as a rightward shift away from a focus on protecting non-mainstream religions. But on Thursday, the court emerged unanimous. The nine justices all agreed that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment in denying Catholic Charities a religious exemption from paying state unemployment taxes. Wisconsin's top court denied the exemption by finding the charity wasn't primarily religious, saying it could only qualify if it was trying to proselytize people. Catholic Charities stressed that the Catholic faith forbids misusing works of charity for proselytism. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored Thursday's majority opinion finding Wisconsin unconstitutionally established a government preference for some religious denominations over others. 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Sotomayor wrote. The fact that Sotomayor, one of the court's three Democratic-appointed justices, wrote the opinion heightened the sense of unity. 'She's voted with us in several other cases, too, and I think it just shows that it is not the partisan issue that people sometimes try to make it out to be,' said Rienzi. However, Sotomayor's opinion notably did not address Catholic Charities' other arguments, including those related to church autonomy that Justice Clarence Thomas, one the court's leading conservatives, endorsed in a solo, separate opinion. Ryan Gardner, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, which filed a brief backing Catholic Charities, similarly called the unanimity an 'encouraging' sign. 'If they can find a way to do that, they want to do that. And that's why I think you have the opinion written the way that it was. It was written that way so that every justice could feel comfortable signing off on it,' said Gardner. Supporters and critics of the court's decision agree it still poses repercussions on cases well beyond the tax context — and even into the culture wars. Perhaps most immediately, the battle at the Supreme Court will shift from unemployment taxes to abortion. The justices have a pending request from religious groups, also represented by Becket, to review New York's mandate that employers' health care plans cover abortions. The regulation exempts religious organizations only if they inculcate religious values, meaning many faith-based charities must still follow the mandate. And for the First Liberty Institute, it believes Thursday's decision bolsters its legal fights in the lower courts. It represents an Ohio church that serves the homeless and an Arizona church that provides food distribution, both embroiled in legal battles with local municipalities that implicate whether the ministries are religious enough. Thursday's decision is not the first time the Supreme Court has unanimously handed a win to religious rights advocates. In 2023, the First Liberty Institute successfully represented a Christian U.S. Postal Service worker who requested a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays. And two years earlier, the court in a unanimous judgment ruled Philadelphia violated the Free Exercise Clause by refusing to refer children to a Catholic adoption agency because it would not certify same-sex couples to be foster parents. 'People thought that was a very narrow decision at the time, but the way it has sort of been applied since then, it has really reshaped a lot of the way that we think about Free Exercise cases,' said Gardner. It's not always kumbaya, however. Last month, the Supreme Court split evenly on a highly anticipated religious case that concerned whether Oklahoma could establish the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school. The 4-4 deadlock meant the effort fizzled. Released just three weeks after the justices' initial vote behind closed doors, the decision spanned one sentence. 'The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,' it reads. Though the deadlock means supporters of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School are left without a green light, they are hoping they will prevail soon enough. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's third appointee to the court, recused from the St. Isidore case, which many court watchers believe stemmed from her friendship with a professor at Notre Dame, whose religious liberty clinic represented St. Isidore. But Barrett could participate in a future case — providing the crucial fifth vote — that presents the same legal question, which poses consequential implications for public education. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has one major religion case left this term. The justices are reviewing whether Montgomery County, Md., must provide parents an option to opt-out their elementary-aged children from instruction with books that include LGBTQ themes. The group of Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents suing say it substantially burdens their First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause. At oral arguments, the conservative majority appeared sympathetic with the parent's plea as the court's three liberal justices raised concerns about where to draw the line. 'Probably, it will be a split decision,' said Gardner, whose group has filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of parents in California. But he cautioned, 'you never know where some of the justices will line up.'
