Christian engineer sues L.A. County over Pride flag display at government buildings

essentialsaltes · Mar 12, 2026

Eric Batman, a civil engineer with L.A. County’s Department of Public Works, filed a lawsuit after his bosses rejected his request to work remotely during Pride month.
It’s the second lawsuit the county faces related to a 2023 policy requiring many government buildings display the Pride flag.

A Christian engineer with L.A. County claims his bosses discriminated against him by forcing him to pass by a Pride flag on the way to his office, the latest legal challenge to the government’s policy of requiring many government buildings display the flag throughout June.

Batman said he first asked to work remotely for the month of June in 2024 to avoid the flag, which he found “highly offensive,” according to the suit.

A supervisor rejected his request, according to the filing, noting the county was “committed to fostering an inclusive workplace, including for our LGBTQ+ employees.” The supervisor suggested he use another entrance, Batman’s suit claimed.

[About the first case:]
In May 2024, Jeffrey Little, an evangelical Christian county lifeguard, sued the county for requiring he work feet away from the flag. That case, filed by conservative Catholic legal group Thomas More Society, is ongoing.

see also

Belk · Mar 12, 2026

.

ThatRobGuy · Mar 12, 2026

If he's that devout/staunch with regards to conservative religious beliefs, making the decision to work for the Los Angeles government seems like an odd choice.

It'd be like if a person who was super against guns got a job working as an engineer for the Smith & Wesson factory, and then complained about having to be around so many guns.

That said, it seems as if all of these flag conversations point to a common theme, which is that displaying activism symbols on government property (especially when it's painfully redundant) creates more problems than it solves.

Belk · Mar 12, 2026

ThatRobGuy said:
If he's that devout/staunch with regards to conservative religious beliefs, making the decision to work for the Los Angeles government seems like an odd choice.

It'd be like if a person who was super against guns got a job working as an engineer for the Smith & Wesson factory, and then complained about having to be around so many guns.

That said, it seems as if all of these flag conversations point to a common theme, which is that displaying activism symbols on government property (especially when it's painfully redundant) creates more problems than it solves.

People making fantastical claims and bizarrely reasoned lawsuits are not "creates more problems than it solves". It is people looking for a reason to be offended.

ThatRobGuy · Mar 12, 2026

Belk said:
People making fantastical claims and bizarrely reasoned lawsuits are not "creates more problems than it solves". It is people looking for a reason to be offended.

Laws, mandates, orders, etc... coming from government need to serve a compelling secular purpose

Typically these types of conversations are in the realm of the "Lemon Test" when a government entity is passing a law that invokes some sort of religious principle.

But the same legal principles are mirrored in other aspects of constitutional law even when we're not talking about religion-based rules.

Obviously this particular government order of "you have to put pride flags up on the buildings" is secular, but what compelling secular purpose is it serving that would set it apart from the type of government ordinances that would otherwise get stuck as being arbitrary and capricious in accordance with Administrative Procedure Act if it were being done at the federal level?

Because if it is arbitrary and capricious (which I would say that it is), those kinds of provisions are very likely to cause more problems than they solve, mainly because arbitrary and capricious rules don't actually solve any problems.

seeking.IAM · Mar 12, 2026

I prefer that government facilities be restricted to only flying flags of nations, states, or cities...governmental regions as it were. I don't want to see the Christian flag above a government building any more than I want to see a rainbow flag. That said, employers are responsible to make "reasonable accommodations" to things like disabilities and religious beliefs. It seems to me if the basis of the lawsuit is that the employee finds it offensive to pass by the rainbow flag, the entity's offering access through another entrance does constitute a reasonable accommodation.

ThatRobGuy · Mar 12, 2026

seeking.IAM said:
I prefer that government facilities be restricted to only flying flags of nations, states, or cities...governmental regions as it were. I don't want to see the Christian flag above a government building any more than I want to see a rainbow flag. That said, employers are responsible to make "reasonable accommodations" to things like disabilities and religious beliefs. It seems to me if the basis of the lawsuit is that the employee finds it offensive to pass by the rainbow flag, the entity's offering access through another entrance does constitute a reasonable accommodation.

Or the local government there could've opted not to issue a mandate requiring government buildings to fly a pride flag.

That's what I was referring to in my earlier post about how capricious and arbitrary government actions like this create more problems than they solve (because such actions don't actually solve any problems)

What compelling governing purpose does it serve in making such an edict?

The symbolism/signage/display doesn't serve any legal purpose (like a "no guns allowed" sign), instructional purpose (like informing people of fire bans, office closures, new park hours, etc.), or employee awareness purposes (like a poster with OSHA rules, or a list of emergency numbers)

The only thing it's doing is saying "The Los Angeles government is cool with all the LGBTQ stuff" -- which, for anyone not living under a rock for the past 20 years, was already abundantly clear about LA.

Was anyone really saying "Gee, I didn't really know which side of the LGBTQ debates LA came came down on...glad they put up that flag so we can know for sure, it was ambiguous before"?

seeking.IAM · Mar 12, 2026

ThatRobGuy said:
Or the local government there could've opted not to issue a mandate requiring government buildings to fly a pride flag.

I agree, but they didn't.

ThatRobGuy said:
What compelling governing purpose does it serve in making such an edict?

It apparently keeps some lawyers fed.

DaisyDay · Mar 13, 2026

seeking.IAM said:
I prefer that government facilities be restricted to only flying flags of nations, states, or cities...governmental regions as it were.

We used to refer to state municipalities as "local mutants".

seeking.IAM said:
I don't want to see the Christian flag above a government building any more than I want to see a rainbow flag. That said, employers are responsible to make "reasonable accommodations" to things like disabilities and religious beliefs. It seems to me if the basis of the lawsuit is that the employee finds it offensive to pass by the rainbow flag, the entity's offering access through another entrance does constitute a reasonable accommodation.

RileyG · Mar 14, 2026

essentialsaltes said:
Eric Batman, a civil engineer with L.A. County’s Department of Public Works, filed a lawsuit after his bosses rejected his request to work remotely during Pride month.

It’s the second lawsuit the county faces related to a 2023 policy requiring many government buildings display the Pride flag.

A Christian engineer with L.A. County claims his bosses discriminated against him by forcing him to pass by a Pride flag on the way to his office, the latest legal challenge to the government’s policy of requiring many government buildings display the flag throughout June.

Batman said he first asked to work remotely for the month of June in 2024 to avoid the flag, which he found “highly offensive,” according to the suit.

A supervisor rejected his request, according to the filing, noting the county was “committed to fostering an inclusive workplace, including for our LGBTQ+ employees.” The supervisor suggested he use another entrance, Batman’s suit claimed.

[About the first case:]
In May 2024, Jeffrey Little, an evangelical Christian county lifeguard, sued the county for requiring he work feet away from the flag. That case, filed by conservative Catholic legal group Thomas More Society, is ongoing.

see also

Good grief! Really? There are bigger fish to fry!

Fervent · Mar 14, 2026

seeking.IAM said:
the entity's offering access through another entrance does constitute a reasonable accommodation.

Separate but equal entrance?

Pommer · Mar 15, 2026

Fervent said:
Separate but equal entrance?

The employee is attempting to say that by working in this Government, (city?, county?), everything that government does reflects on how he is perceived by other people.
By asking for this (or that) display to be eliminated [to safeguard his own “reputation”], he attempts to place the burden on the government to protect his right to his self-expression that disagrees with certain aspects of that government.

Which is a great principle, (we can agree) but unworkable in the real world, since every employee who feels strongly enough about this (or that) policy could sue so that the government’s own “free-speech” is curtailed.

rjs330 · Mar 15, 2026

Good grief. You dont need to display a certain groups flag on any government building to portray that you are inclusive. How ridiculous. Just be inclusive and help your customers, no matter who they are. That's what governement is supposed to do. Provide services for everyone. They shouldnt be singling out any group for SPECIAL recognition like that. Let's just stop with the virtue signaling. Let's focus on providing good service to anyone who walks through the door. I bet I can find all.kinds of flags that could be put up to show support for certain people. I bet several would be seen as offensive by others.

If they really want to show inclusivity that way, then lets put up all tye flags. No matter who they offend. If not, then take down all flags and just get to work.

essentialsaltes · Mar 15, 2026

rjs330 said:
Good grief. You dont need to display a certain groups flag on any government building

Certainly they don't need to, but they have chosen to. If we the people don't like it, we can choose different people to represent us in government.

rjs330 · Mar 15, 2026

essentialsaltes said:
Certainly they don't need to, but they have chosen to. If we the people don't like it, we can choose different people to represent us in government.

Or we can do what everyone else does and sue the government to stop it. Gee, what do you think all the lawsuits are for regarding how tye governement is handling immigration enforcement. Hey if they dont like it. They could just leave it be until they vote in different people.

essentialsaltes · Mar 15, 2026

rjs330 said:
Or we can do what everyone else does and sue the government to stop it. Gee, what do you think all the lawsuits are for regarding how tye governement is handling immigration enforcement.

What constitutional provisions are violated by Pride flags? What would the hypothetical basis for challenging them be? (As opposed to the 4th and 5th amendments (and maybe more) in the cases you allude to?)

rjs330 said:
Hey if they dont like it. They could just leave it be until they vote in different people.

If it's unconstitutional, as several courts have ruled it is, then they have a legitimate complaint. What is the legitimate complaint in this case?

rjs330 · Mar 15, 2026

essentialsaltes said:
What constitutional provisions are violated by Pride flags? What would the hypothetical basis for challenging them be? (As opposed to the 4th and 5th amendments (and maybe more) in the cases you allude to?)

If it's unconstitutional, as several courts have ruled it is, then they have a legitimate complaint. What is the legitimate complaint in this case?

Or the suits against transgender laws regarding children. Or the any number of suits that organizations or people bring against the government. Just cause you bring a suit that its a constitutional violation doesnt mean it is. And we've seen a number of suits that one court ruled one way, o ly to have it overturned by another.

The point is, you statement doesn't actually cut the mustard. We do not wait until we just vote in someone new. If we feel the government is overstepping or doing something wrong we can do more than just wait until the next election cycle. We can address it through the courts.

And just because we do, doesn't mean we are correct. It also doesnt mean the court is correct either. Because one court can overturn another as you well know.

essentialsaltes · Mar 15, 2026

rjs330 said:
We do not wait until we just vote in someone new. If we feel the government is overstepping or doing something wrong we can do more than just wait until the next election cycle. We can address it through the courts.

Once again "What is the legitimate complaint in this case?"

Do you have an answer, or are you waiting for something to stick to the wall when it is thrown?

RileyG · Mar 16, 2026

rjs330 said:
Good grief. You dont need to display a certain groups flag on any government building to portray that you are inclusive. How ridiculous. Just be inclusive and help your customers, no matter who they are. That's what governement is supposed to do. Provide services for everyone. They shouldnt be singling out any group for SPECIAL recognition like that. Let's just stop with the virtue signaling. Let's focus on providing good service to anyone who walks through the door. I bet I can find all.kinds of flags that could be put up to show support for certain people. I bet several would be seen as offensive by others.

If they really want to show inclusivity that way, then lets put up all tye flags. No matter who they offend. If not, then take down all flags and just get to work.

Agreed. I don’t understand it either. I think it’s more of a “signal” to say look at us! We are “trendy!” In the long run, I don’t think it’s a huge deal. It’s more of attention seeking if anything.

rjs330 · Mar 19, 2026

RileyG said:
Agreed. I don’t understand it either. I think it’s more of a “signal” to say look at us! We are “trendy!” In the long run, I don’t think it’s a huge deal. It’s more of attention seeking if anything.

Yes, it is nothing but virtue signaling. Its foolishness. Its no different than putting up the Christian flag to say we are inclusive to Christians.

Christian engineer sues L.A. County over Pride flag display at government buildings

Fact-Based Lifeform

Senior Member

Part of the IT crowd

Senior Member

Part of the IT crowd

A View From The Pew

Part of the IT crowd

A View From The Pew

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Future History Slab Carver

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Similar threads