All Muslim council removes the pride flags in once left-wing town? (DIY takeover)

(Jun 27, 2026 05:56 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:

Quote:If you see no issue, then I guess you think they have every right to remove all the Pride flags.

Pretty sure they'll have a legal battle on their hands. The same ACLU that protects their freedom to practice their religion protects the rights of LGBT to have pride festivals. Mind boggling isn't it? So we'll see how this turns out in the courts.

Hamtramck, Michigan (2025): In September 2025, a federal judge dismissed lawsuits against Hamtramck, ruling that the city’s 2023 ban on Pride flags on public flagpoles is constitutional. The court found that the city’s policy—which restricts flagpoles to a limited set of flags, such as the U.S. and Michigan flags—constituted "government speech" and was viewpoint-neutral because it banned all private, identity-based flags, not just Pride flags.
- gemini

Do you still see no issue?

Quote:The court found that the city’s policy—which restricts flagpoles to a limited set of flags, such as the U.S. and Michigan flags—constituted "government speech" and was viewpoint-neutral because it banned all private, identity-based flags, not just Pride flags.

Oh..so only only on govt-owned flagpoles. Sounds reasonable. I thought they were banning all pride flags everywhere.

(Jun 27, 2026 06:40 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:

Quote:The court found that the city’s policy—which restricts flagpoles to a limited set of flags, such as the U.S. and Michigan flags—constituted "government speech" and was viewpoint-neutral because it banned all private, identity-based flags, not just Pride flags.

Oh..so only only on govt-owned flagpoles. Sounds reasonable. I thought they were banning all pride flags everywhere.

Then this is meaningless:

(Jun 27, 2026 02:52 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: That's rich coming from the same mob of cretins always banning rainbow anything from schools, city streets, stores, and city bldgs.

As conservatives have only ever banned such flags from government-funded property, like public schools, city street posts and buildings, and never from private stores, homes, etc.. So reasonable all around, right?

The town's original population is indeed just angry over Pride flags being banned on government property. Two members of a commission were fired because they refused to conform to the new rule, and they are the ones who brought the grievance. (article at bottom).

While still welcoming LGBT+, the Muslim council does make it clear that they regard Pride flags as potentially disrespecting their own religious freedom and that of other groups. While pro-Christian conservatives arguably or generally seem reluctant to ally with Muslims who vote left, at least some of the latter are ironically crypto-fundamentalists whose self-interests sometimes overlap with the former's. And they enjoy the shielded advantage of operating within the Democratic Party itself.

This 2026 Jihad Watch article might have been the source on The Rubin Report: "While leftists are the biggest LGBTQ+ activists and yet are pro-Islam, while showing acrimony toward America’s Judeo-Christian roots and heritage, they have been mysteriously quiet about how Islam views LGBTQ and treats gays. In Michigan, were it not for the left, there wouldn’t be a Muslim city council."

Well, they're not so quiet and inconsistent about it in Hamtramck any more. Also (wikipedia): In 2022, it became the first U.S. city to have an all-Muslim government. It also now has an all-male elected government, which has been said to "not reflect the city's makeup."

And outside the government context, Hamtramck Muslims are voicing their opinions, too...

‘A sense of betrayal’: liberal dismay as Muslim-led US city bans Pride flags (excerpts): . . . .some Hamtramck Muslims say they simply want to protect children, and gay people should “keep it in their home”. [...] When Michigan legalized marijuana, it gave municipalities a late 2020 deadline to enact a prohibition of dispensaries. Hamtramck council missed the deadline and a dispensary opened, drawing outrage from conservative Muslims who demanded city leadership shut it down. That ignited counterprotests from many liberal residents, and the council only relented when it became clear it had no legal recourse. [...] some Muslims say they saw bigotry in local voter fraud investigations, and in LGBTQ+ supporters not respecting their religion.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A Muslim-majority city banned Pride flags. A judge just ruled on its legality
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2025/09/a-mu...-legality/

EXCERPT: The entire Hamtramck City Council is Muslim, as are about 50% of city residents. Councilmembers argued that while LGBTQ+ people are welcome in the city, flying the Pride flag would disrespect the religious freedom of others.

“We want to respect the religious rights of our citizens,” said Councilman Nayeem Choudhury during the June 2023 debate over the policy. “[LGBTQ+ people] are welcome… [but] why do you have to have the flag shown on government property to be represented? You’re already represented. We already know who you are… By making this [about] bigotry… it’s making it like you want to hate us.”

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Russ Gordon and Cathy Stackpoole, who were fired from the city’s Human Relations Commission after they flew Pride flags on public property in defiance of the council’s new policy.

Their suit claimed the law banning the Pride flag violated the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment. The suit further argued that the plaintiffs didn’t violate the policy because “an unconstitutional resolution is itself a violation of law, and a citizen who violates an unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful, resolution cannot be violating the law.”

Rather, the lawsuit alleged that the councilmembers who voted in favor of the policy violated the law by instating the “unconstitutional” policy.

Hamtramck Mayor Amer Ghalib told The Detroit Free Press that the lawsuit is “another unnecessary distraction by the former power structure that doesn’t like to see the city moving forward.”

“The neutrality resolution is legal and constitutional,” Ghalib said. “The city doesn’t discriminate, or give any preferential treatment to any group. The taxpayer government buildings or spaces belong to everyone and cannot be used by a specific group to promote a special interest group’s agenda. The city isn’t being selective on which flag it can fly, like it was the case with Shurtleff v. Boston, in which the Supreme Court ruled against the city’s selective enforcement. This is different: The city decided to keep government properties neutral, and no group would be allowed to fly any kind of flags other than what’s specified in the resolution.”

Quote:Then this is meaningless:

No it isn't dipshit. Banning pride flags from just govt owned flagpoles is not the same as banning rainbow anythings from schools, city streets, and stores, like the big Target fiasco that was selling rainbow clothes and the rainbow crosswalks in many cities now banned by the Trump administration and the banning of rainbow emblems on students' shirts and in classrooms. Learn to read.

In spite of conservative attempts at such, cities and communities are fighting back, often quite creatively:

https://www.planetizen.com/features/1378...inbow-bans

San Francisco's laser pride flag:

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1536605324685798

(Jun 27, 2026 05:14 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:

Quote:Then this is meaningless:

No it isn't dipshit. Banning pride flags from just govt owned flagpoles is not the same as banning rainbow anythings from schools, city streets, ...and the rainbow crosswalks in many cities now banned by the Trump administration...

Rainbows on government property would not be "viewpoint-neutral" and would be "identity-based," just like the flags. Courts have ruled that cities and states have authority over things like crosswalks, state-funded universities, courthouses, city halls, and municipal offices, for the display of stickers, posters, etc. that display rainbows. Only courts in very leftist areas have overturned bans in a couple of public K-12 school districts.

Quote:...and stores, like the big Target fiasco that was selling rainbow clothes ... and the banning of rainbow emblems on students' shirts and in classrooms. Learn to read.

Boycotting stores you don't agree with is 100% legal. No government had anything to do with that.
And only local school boards, admins, etc. have tried to enforce a public school dress codes. Rainbow clothing has never been banned by law.

So you're conflating laws conservatives have actually passed with simple boycotts or local school policies. Learn the difference.

Quote:Boycotting stores you don't agree with is 100% legal. No government had anything to do with that. And only local school boards, admins, etc. have tried to enforce a public school dress codes. Rainbow clothing has never been banned by law.

And? It's still trying to get rainbow anythings banned with the same agenda of suppressing free speech. Wrong is wrong no matter how you get it done.

(Jun 27, 2026 08:15 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:

Quote:Boycotting stores you don't agree with is 100% legal. No government had anything to do with that. And only local school boards, admins, etc. have tried to enforce a public school dress codes. Rainbow clothing has never been banned by law.

And? It's still trying to get rainbow anythings banned with the same agenda of suppressing free speech. Wrong is wrong no matter how you get it done.

You have no right to use government property for your agenda. You have no right for people to spend money with you when they disagree with you.
Notice how you've gone from Republicans, writ large, to whining about local K-12 school boards. Sorry, the entire Republican party isn't involved with those, no matter how much you may wish to paint it as such.

If you think Muslims banning flags is fine, you cannot be against what Republicans have done, upheld by courts, for the exact same legal reasons.

But then, you might just be that blatant a hypocrite.

Quote:If you think Muslims banning flags is fine, you cannot be against what Republicans have done, upheld by courts, for the exact same legal reasons.

As I already said, using govt flag poles specifically for govt flags is fine. Banning the display of rainbows anywhere else in the city and in store merchandise and in schools and on streets, which is what MAGA phobes try to do, is simple intolerance. Read this twice if you are still confused.