The Supreme Court has supported the placement of the LGTBI+ rainbow flag in public buildings during Pride celebrations, considering that it does not represent a “symbol of a partisan nature” nor does it promote “any type of conflict.”
The Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court has ruled that both the Provincial Council of Valladolid like the City Council Zaragoza acted within the law by displaying the rainbow flag. In the case of Valladolid, it was placed in the interior patio of the building, while in Zaragoza it was displayed on the balcony.
In two sentences written by the magistrate Paul Lucasthe Supreme Court points out that the rainbow flag “is not used to replace or subordinate official flags, it does not represent a symbol of a partisan nature and it does not incite any type of confrontation.” On the contrary, it stands out that this symbol promotes equality between people, a value that is recognized by both the Constitution and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Thus, the Supreme Court rejects the appeal filed by the association Christian Lawyers in the case of Zaragoza and rules in favor of the Provincial Council of Valladolid, annulling the sentence of the Superior Court of Castile and León which had accepted the appeal of said ultra-catholic association.
An act to promote equality and LGTBI+ rights
The rulings clarify that in these cases the law that regulates the use of the Spanish flag or other official flags does not apply, and they argue that there is no contradiction between the current decision and previous resolutions on the raising of an autonomous flag different from the one statute or the display of symbols and messages of a partisan nature in public buildings.
According to the rulings, the use of the LGTBI+ flag is supported by the comprehensive law for equal treatment and non-discrimination
The sentences explain that the use of the LGTBI+ flag is supported by the comprehensive law for equal treatment and non-discrimination, which recognizes the right of all people not to be discriminated against, among other reasons, due to their orientation or sexual identity. This principle is also included in the law for the real and effective equality of the trans people and in the legislation that guarantees the rights of LGTBI+ people.
In this sense, the Supreme Court concludes that the display of the flag does not violate the obligation of objectivity of public administrations nor does it compromise the neutrality that they must maintain. On the contrary, it considers that this action is part of the actions that must be carried out to promote equality.
The dissenting vote of a magistrate
Both sentences include the dissenting opinion of one of the five judges of the court, Jose Luis Requerowho considers that the placement of LGTBI+ flags on publicly owned buildings violates the obligation of neutrality and objectivity that the Constitution grants to administrations.
Requero argues that the LGTBI+ movement, represented by the rainbow flag, encompasses “acronyms that cover various sexual tendencies and that support different postulates, including those of the so-called gender ideology”, which, according to him, are not peaceful and generate division in society, whether for reasons of belief or ideology.
Furthermore, he maintains that “one thing is the achievement of objectives inspired by plausible principles such as equality, respect, inclusion and tolerance, and another very different thing is for a public administration to go beyond meeting those objectives and end up championing −and uses the word ‘flag’ intentionally – controversial ideological postulates that underlie the symbol that gives rise to the dispute.”
#Supreme #Court #authorizes #display #rainbow #flag #public #buildings #Pride #Day
