A granite wall in Yosemite and a “Stonewall” in New York City are now flash points in the ongoing cultural wars.

Yosemite, because of a transgender banner that was put up, and New York City, because of a Pride flag that was taken down.

The two flags are clearly connected to the LGBTQ+ community.

They also have another common denominator.

Both were on National Park Service property.

And both are the subject of lawsuits.

That said, the premises of each situation is different although there is little doubt those who have filed the lawsuits don’t see it that way.

First the Yosemite lawsuit.

Shannon Joslin is a former National Park Service employee who was fired with four weeks to go in her probationary period.

Generally, courts have upheld laws that say employers do not need to state a specific reason for terminating a probationary employee.

That said, it is also clear that discrimination of gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, creed, and such is not OK under the law. If any of those factors figured into Joslin’s dismissal even as a probationary employee, the National Park Service would be skating on extremely thin ice.

What did Joslin do?

She was among seven climbers — including other park service employees — who partially ascended El Capitan to hang a 55-foot by 35-foot transgender pride flag in May of 2025.

They did so to protest the efforts of the Trump administration to pare back rights for those who identify as being transgender.

Yosemite does not allow demonstrations and other activities in areas that may potentially damage the park’s natural resources.

The 3,000-foot high granite face of El Capitan is clearly one such area.

Given one of the reasons the National Park Service exists is to protect natural resources for the enjoyment of future generations, it is a reasonable rule.

Joslin, as a professional wildlife biologist, should understand the reasoning behind such a ban.

The group determined El Capitan was a fitting place to show that “trans is natural.”

Sorry, but a 55-foot by 35-foot flag — whether it has the blue, white and pink stripes of a trans pride flag or the red and white stripes with white stars on a blue field of a USA flag — is not natural.

The placement of the flag was not done on a work day for Joslin.

Joslin contends it was free speech.

But free speech is not absolute.

As a wildlife biologist, Joslin should be able to appreciate that given she’d likely have a coronary if those protesting a wrong, perceived or otherwise, splashed El Capitan — or the bats she was hired or protect — with red paint.

Of course, that wouldn’t be the same because they weren’t protesting what she was protesting.

But there is a twist.

None of the other Park Service employees that participated were punished, let alone dismissed.

It is why Joslin’s lawyers are zeroing in on the argument the government terminated her for viewpoint discrimination — therefore — her First Amendment rights were violated.

When Joslin was terminated, an Interior spokesperson told reporters the Park Service and Department of Interior were “pursuing” administrative action against other Yosemite employees as well.

The spokesperson also referenced criminal action being taken against park visitors involved in the demonstration.

There is no mitigating circumstance such as the trans flag didn’t permanently mar El Capitan as if that would be a justification for breaking the park regulation.

Noting would destroy the Yosemite experience — or that of any national wilderness — by opening the door to it being desecrated either temporarily or permanently — in the name of free speech whether the cause is not forgetting MIAs or POWs or supporting Pride issues.

But by the Park Service not disciplining other employees who were not probationary to even a lesser degree that should have been justified for them taking part in the protest stunt, makes you wonder whether Joslin was terminated to score political points in the cultural wars.

Her probationary status made her a convenient target.

The fact the government didn’t dole out punishment for the other workers involved reeks of politics especially since Park Service lawyers should take all desecration of Yosemite seriously — fleeting or permanent — especially by those paid to protect the 1,080 square-mile national park.

The other flag, representing the overall Pride community, was taken down by the Park Service at the Stonewall National Monument in Greenwich Village in New York City.

The 1969 “riots” at the Stonewall Inn is widely accepted as the birth place of the gay rights movement.

The national monument was created in 2016 by then President Obama.

The Pride flag has been flying at the monument since 2019.

That changed when the executive order went out on Feb. 9 that the National Park Service was only to fly the national flag, the Department of Interior flag, and the MIA/POW flag.

Six days later, New York US Senator Charles Schumer introduced legislation to give the Pride flag permanent flying status at the Stonewall National Monument.

Then on Feb. 15, the government was sued for taking the flag down.

The obvious observation is the Pride flag has everything to do with the Stonewall National Monument.

At the same time, it is clear the trans pride flag has nothing to do with Yosemite National Park.

Those that agree with those two points aren’t projecting their “viewpoint” on the situations.

But if one denies the Pride flag isn’t a reasonable part of the Stonewall National Monument, then they clearly have an agenda.

The same goes for those that stridently defend those who hung the trans pride flag on the face of El Capitan.

It’s time that we restore reasonable boundaries on public protests regardless of what side you are on when it comes to the great cultural divide.

As for Joslin, who is nonbinary and whether you agree with her or not, did not follow the rules.

But neither did six others.

Yet, Joslin was terminated even though her employment with Yosemite dates back to 2021 as she had entered into the probationary portal when she changed jobs within the Park Service.

As such, her treatment smacks of political retribution.

This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com