The Gadsden Flag – the famous Revolutionary War Flag depicting a coiled snake, ready to strike and the words “DONT TREAD ON ME” below, can now be considered racist and the government might ban you from displaying it.

That’s because an extraordinarily delicate black employee of a company claimed a co-worker wearing a baseball cap with the flag on it amounted to racial harassment.

TRENDING: Then-Attorney General Kamala Harris Outright Refused To Enforce Restrictive Sex Offender Law in California

Now – the only connection between the Gadsden Flag and racism is that the creator of the flag – Christopher Gadsden – owned slaves. That’s it. The flag was first used during the Revolutionary War aboard ships assembled by the Continental Congress to counter British blockades.

There really is no other connection to racism, or slaves or the Confederacy. Some leftists insist the flag is still racist because conservative groups use it, but that’s amazingly idiotic.

So here’s an excerpt of the complaint heard by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, courtesy The Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy:

On January 8, 2014, Complainant filed a formal complaint in which he alleged that the Agency subjected him to discrimination on the basis of race (African American) and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when, starting in the fall of 2013, a coworker (C1) repeatedly wore a cap to work with an insignia of the Gadsden Flag, which depicts a coiled rattlesnake and the phrase “Don’t Tread on Me.” Complainant stated that he found the cap to be racially offensive to African Americans because the flag was designed by Christopher Gadsden, a “slave trader & owner of slaves.” Complainant also alleged that he complained about the cap to management; however, although management assured him C1 would be told not to wear the cap, C1 continued to come to work wearing the offensive cap. Additionally, Complainant alleged that on September 2, 2013, a coworker took a picture of him on the work room floor without his consent. In a decision dated January 29, 2014, the Agency dismissed Complainant’s complaint on the basis it failed to state a claim . . . . Complainant maintains that the Gadsden Flag is a “historical indicator of white resentment against blacks stemming largely from the Tea Party.” He notes that the Vice President of the International Association of Black Professional Firefighters cited the Gadsden Flag as the equivalent of the Confederate Battle Flag when he successfully had it removed from a New Haven, Connecticut fire department flagpole. After a thorough review of the record, it is clear that the Gadsden Flag originated in the Revolutionary War in a non-racial context. Moreover, it is clear that the flag and its slogan have been used to express various non-racial sentiments, such as when it is used in the modern Tea Party political movement, guns rights activism, patriotic displays, and by the military. RELATED: EPIC Truth About History Of The Parties They Don't Teach In School However, whatever the historic origins and meaning of the symbol, it also has since been sometimes interpreted to convey racially-tinged messages in some contexts. For example, in June 2014, assailants with connections to white supremacist groups draped the bodies of two murdered police officers with the Gadsden flag during their Las Vegas, Nevada shooting spree. [Footnote: Shooters in Metro ambush that left five dead spoke of white supremacy and a desire to kill police, Las Vegas Review-Journal, June 8, 2014.] Additionally, in 2014, African-American New Haven firefighters complained about the presence of the Gadsden flag in the workplace on the basis that the symbol was racially insensitive. [Paul Bass, Flag Sparks Fire Department Complaint, New Haven Independent, Feb. 25, 2014] Certainly, Complainant ascribes racial connotations to the symbol based on observations that it is sometimes displayed in racially-tinged situations. In light of the ambiguity in the current meaning of this symbol, we find that Complainant’s claim must be investigated to determine the specific context in which C1 displayed the symbol in the workplace. In so finding, we are not prejudging the merits of Complainant’s complaint. Instead, we are precluding a procedural dismissal that would deprive us of evidence that would illuminate the meaning conveyed by C1’s display of the symbol.

What’s interesting about this is that there’s no evidence presented that the cap wearer ever said or did anything racist to “Sheldon.” All he did was wear the baseball cap. So the only association between racism and that symbol is in Sheldon’s mind. He thinks it’s racist. It doesn’t matter whether it is or not.

Apparently now, you can be called a racist and your speech censored not only if you’re actually a racist, but if anybody simply thinks you are.

So Volokh points out that even though the EEOC didn’t rule either way on this issue, the chilling effect is tremendous. Imagine a co-worker wears “Trump/Pence 2016” gear into the workplace, or has a bumper sticker on their car. Another co-worker claims it’s “racist” or “offensive.” What does the employer do, knowing there’s a possibility they could be charged with creating a “hostile work environment”? Do they let the bumper sticker stay there or do they tell the employee to take it off?

It’s a dangerous and slippery slope we’re headed down.

ALERT: How To Be Sure To Continue Seeing Our Content On Facebook.





