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

[Syne]

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.

First, you're conflating government property and private stores. No one has ever banned LGBT merchandise from a store. People just refuse to shop there.

Second, you do know that public schools, streets, etc. are government property, right? The exact same court ruling that say government flagpoles should be politically neutral also apply to any other government property. Courts have ruled. If you don't like it, take it up with them.

Third, you're just being hysterical saying is "banning the display of rainbows anywhere else in the city." That is not happening, as there are tons of place in every city not owned by the local government.

Fourth, if you think the Muslims in Hamtramck banned Pride flags out of a sense of acceptance and inclusion, you're delusional.

[Magical Realist]

First, you're conflating government property and private stores. No one has ever banned LGBT merchandise from a store. People just refuse to shop there.

Boycotting and picketing and sending hate mail to Target for selling rainbow shirts is precisely all about getting them to ban it. And it actually worked. Target caved to the troglodytes and withdrew the line. That's banning rainbow emblems from stores. Who knows how many other stores this happened to.

Second, you do know that public schools, streets, etc. are government property, right?

It's an educational facility unlike a courthouse or post office. As such it's job is to educate kids on tolerance for all minorities. And allowing the display of their symbols is part of that process. The ACLU says: "Rainbow flags, pride flags, and other symbols celebrating LGBTQ pride are a protected form of free speech in school settings." The very attempt of Florida to ban even the mention of LGBT in lessons and ban LGBT-related books in school libraries confirms that whole homophobic agenda.

Third, you're just being hysterical saying is "banning the display of rainbows anywhere else in the city." That is not happening, as there are tons of place in every city not owned by the local government.

Like scrubbing rainbows off of street crossings and murals? Yeah..that's pretty much banning the display of rainbows anywhere else in the city.

Fourth, if you think the Muslims in Hamtramck banned Pride flags out of a sense of acceptance and inclusion, you're delusional.

Exactly what conservatives do on their own city councils. You are exactly like the Muslims you hate. Beware of fighting monsters, remember?

[Syne]

First, you're conflating government property and private stores. No one has ever banned LGBT merchandise from a store. People just refuse to shop there.

Boycotting and picketing and sending hate mail to Target for selling rainbow shirts is precisely all about getting them to ban it. And it actually worked. Target caved to the troglodytes and withdrew the line. That's banning rainbow emblems from stores. Who knows how many other stores this happened to.

That's the free market. I know you don't like it, but that's just customers exercising their freedom of speech. Stores exist to profit, and if people quit shopping there, they do not profit or survive.

Second, you do know that public schools, streets, etc. are government property, right?

It's an educational facility unlike a courthouse or post office. As such it's job is to educate kids on tolerance for all minorities. And allowing the display of their symbols is part of that process. The ACLU says: "Rainbow flags, pride flags, and other symbols celebrating LGBTQ pride are a protected form of free speech in school settings." The very attempt of Florida to ban even the mention of LGBT in lessons and ban LGBT-related books in school libraries confirms that whole homophobic agenda.

Public schools are owned by the local government and funded by taxpayers. You don't get to push your agenda unless your side runs that local government, which represents those taxpayers.

LGBTQ+ pride symbols and flags are generally protected as student free speech in public schools under the First Amendment, provided they do not cause a material disruption. However, the legal reality varies significantly depending on whether the expression comes from a student or a teacher, and whether the display is classified as private speech or school-endorsed "government speech".
- gemini

You seem to be conflating student free speech with teacher, school-endorsed government speech.

Third, you're just being hysterical saying is "banning the display of rainbows anywhere else in the city." That is not happening, as there are tons of place in every city not owned by the local government.

Like scrubbing rainbows off of street crossings and murals? Yeah..that's pretty much banning the display of rainbows anywhere else in the city.

Courts have ruled that cities and states have jurisdiction over street and crosswalk marking, to make them uniform and ensure safety. What murals on private property have been banned? Or are you still conflating government property? @_@

Fourth, if you think the Muslims in Hamtramck banned Pride flags out of a sense of acceptance and inclusion, you're delusional.

Exactly what conservatives do on their own city councils. You are exactly like the Muslims you hate. Beware of fighting monsters, remember?

Then why do you make excuses for the Muslims? @_@
Conservatives being against LGBT did not come from fighting Muslims. Are you saying the LGBT are monsters? @_@

[stryder]

So the removal of the Pride related flag in my local county in the UK by a Reform majority actually implies they are siding with Muslims.

Thats an interesting twist.

[Magical Realist]

That's the free market.

No it isn't. A free market is letting stores sell what they want instead of forcing them to sell only the things that suit your ideology. If you don't like rainbow shirts, don't buy them. You don't have the right to ban them for other people.

However, the legal reality varies significantly depending on whether the expression comes from a student or a teacher, and whether the display is classified as private speech or school-endorsed "government speech".

Yep..no clear legal line there between the expression of free speech in the classroom or on the bodies of students. Allowing the expression of LGBT or black rights or Hispanic rights or women's rights or any other rights is not an encroachment on anyone's rights.

Courts have ruled that cities and states have jurisdiction over street and crosswalk marking, to make them uniform and ensure safety. What murals on private property have been banned? Or are you still conflating government property?

City streets and murals are owned only by the city not the state and federal govt. They have no jurisdiction over what kind of art cities allow there, notwithstanding Trump's attempts to ban it. Which is why they can only extort cities by threatening to withhold funding.

What murals on private property have been banned?

"Beyond roadways, some smaller towns have debated public art bans altogether. In Littleton, New Hampshire, a local council member pushed to restrict murals and theater performances that featured themes tied to the LGBTQ+ community, causing significant community reckoning and debate. The artwork, featuring rainbow motifs and the words of LGBTQ+ pioneers, was targeted by a conservative select board member who labeled the paintings as "demonic symbolism"

And guess what? He wasn't Muslim.

Then why do you make excuses for the Muslims?

City flagpoles devoted only to flying govt flags isn't making excuses for Muslims. The city council voted for it. Just as city councils vote to allow rainbows on streets and murals and in city-sponsored festivals.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1530895448810432

[confused2]

A free market is letting stores sell what they want..

Nah.
All this free market/speech etc. stuff is (intended to be) tyranny by the masses .. it's more communist than communism.
Except .. your favorite brand of Soylent Green may not list every ingredient on the label.

Edit .. possibly another thread to follow this trail..

[Syne]

That's the free market.

No it isn't. A free market is letting stores sell what they want instead of forcing them to sell only the things that suit your ideology. If you don't like rainbow shirts, don't buy them. You don't have the right to ban them for other people.

They can sell what they want. No one forced them to remove any items. They just reacted to the market, which was boycotting them.

No one formally or legally forced Target to remove LGBTQ+ items. Instead, the retailer chose to scale back its Pride Month collections and eliminate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs in response to intense conservative boycotts and threats against employees.

Target cited a desire to protect its staff and mitigate negative in-store incidents for the scale-backs. However, LGBTQ+ advocates and organizations have criticized these decisions, characterizing the concessions as corporate capitulation. While the full assortment of LGBTQ+ themed items remains available online, users in online discussions have expressed mixed opinions, with many viewing the removal as a sign that corporate support for the community is performative.
- gemini

I don't condone any threats. And as you can see, Target still sells these items online.
Boycotts should have been sufficient... and they came from the LGBT as well:

Target’s sales and profits were directly hurt by the consumer backlash and subsequent boycotts.
Unlike most short-lived retail boycotts, the pressure on Target had a prolonged, measurable impact on its bottom line because the company faced multiple waves of backlash from both sides of the political spectrum.
- gemini

9_9

Courts have ruled that cities and states have jurisdiction over street and crosswalk marking, to make them uniform and ensure safety. What murals on private property have been banned? Or are you still conflating government property?

City streets and murals are owned only by the city not the state and federal govt. They have no jurisdiction over what kind of art cities allow there, notwithstanding Trump's attempts to ban it. Which is why they can only extort cities by threatening to withhold funding.

I didn't say city streets were owned by state or federal government. Literacy is amazing.
State DOTs do have full authority over traffic markings in cities, to enforce compliance with DOT regulations.

What murals on private property have been banned?

"Beyond roadways, some smaller towns have debated public art bans altogether. In Littleton, New Hampshire, a local council member pushed to restrict murals and theater performances that featured themes tied to the LGBTQ+ community, causing significant community reckoning and debate. The artwork, featuring rainbow motifs and the words of LGBTQ+ pioneers, was targeted by a conservative select board member who labeled the paintings as "demonic symbolism"

And guess what? He wasn't Muslim.

Yes, cities have the authority to ban artwork on city property.... but they do not have that authority over private property.
A single local board member is not indicative of all conservatives. That would be a hasty generalization.

Then why do you make excuses for the Muslims?

City flagpoles devoted only to flying govt flags isn't making excuses for Muslims. The city council voted for it. Just as city councils vote to allow rainbows on streets and murals and in city-sponsored festivals.

Just as conservative city councils have voted to remove rainbows from streets and murals on government property.

[Magical Realist]

They can sell what they want. No one forced them to remove any items. They just reacted to the market, which was boycotting them.

Boycotting and picketing and sending hate mail to a store is forcing a business to stop selling items that are against your ideology. It's attempting to harm the company as an extortion attempt to make them do what you want. It is no different from any other kind of banning. The source of the banning is irrelevant. And the fact that "Target cited a desire to protect its staff and mitigate negative in-store incidents for the scale-backs" shows how far it went. When you're threatening Target employees and their stores you are extorting them into doing your will. That's the thuggish nature of you homophobes' tactics.

---

Nah.

Yah..It's one of the pillars of a free market system.

[Syne]

They can sell what they want. No one forced them to remove any items. They just reacted to the market, which was boycotting them.

Boycotting and picketing and sending hate mail to a store is forcing a business to stop selling items that are against your ideology. It's attempting to harm the company as an extortion attempt to make them do what you want. It is no different from any other kind of banning. The source of the banning is irrelevant. And the fact that "Target cited a desire to protect its staff and mitigate negative in-store incidents for the scale-backs" shows how far it went. When you're threatening Target employees and their stores you are extorting them into doing your will. That's the thuggish nature you homophobes' tactics.

Boycotting, picketing, and hate mail (short of actual violent threats) are all free speech.
After years of leftists threatening to boycott conservative businesses, or ones that merely do business with Israel or have a CEO or founder support a Republican, it's rich to whine about reaping what you sow. Chick-fil-A, Hobby Lobby, Home Depot, Equinox/SoulCycle, etc. also received threats of violence, as well as boycotts. The right learned these tactics from the left.

Target had a choice. They chose profit. It was a free choice in response to the market.
And I already said threats of violence are illegal and not condoned.

---

All this free market/speech etc. stuff is (intended to be) tyranny by the masses .. it's more communist than communism.

So freedom... is communism? That does not follow.
Neither the market nor free speech compel any action. If your beliefs are stronger than your profit motive as a company, the natural result is that your company may fail. There's nothing communist about companies competing in a free market. Nor speech competing in the free marketplace of ideas.

[Magical Realist]

Target had a choice. They chose profit. It was a free choice in response to the market.

Pulling a product line or risk losing business isn't a choice. It's extortion. It's troglodytes like you banning rainbows because you're afraid LGBTs might be seen as normal, which they pretty much already are.

And I actually went to a Chick-Fil-A in San Antonio 3 weeks ago. I waited in the drive-thru for 20 minutes for my order and had to get out of my car to go get it. I didn't threaten their employees though. I don't believe in extortion. They were grilled chicken nuggets which were really delicious. I also ate at Cracker Barrel. Best meatloaf I ever had.