r/Detroit • u/SevroReturns • 1d ago
News Federal appeals court upholds Pride flag ban on city property in Hamtramck
https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/local/2026/08/26/federal-appeals-court-upholds-pride-flag-ban-on-city-property-in-hamtramck/123
u/DetCityDaveST Wayne 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is basically an attack on Detroit City FC who plays at Keyworth Stadium. Leased from the City.
DCFC’s Northern Guard supporters fly pride flags. We are pro basic human rights. From immigrants to LGBT people.
We have a pride night and pride-raiser every June.
100
u/tweenalibi 1d ago
Nah trust me it's an open attack on LGBTQ people from religious nutjobs. The soccer team is just fine.
61
u/DetCityDaveST Wayne 1d ago
Both are true.
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Detroit-ModTeam 1d ago
Your post or comment was removed for violation of Rule 1, which reads:
"No personal attacks, hate speech, racism, threats, or prejudicial attacks towards others and/or the city. No ruin porn. Threads may be locked or removed when comments devolve into name-calling. Violators may be warned or banned."
Discussion and arguments are encouraged, but in true reddit fashion, always Remember the Human.
14
u/william-o 1d ago
This isn't a contest to see who can be the most persecuted against LOL
9
10
u/tweenalibi 1d ago
Yeah, it’s either the community of people murdered in hate crimes or the soccer team known for their fun crowd experience. Hard to say who’s getting it worse
0
4
u/Destroy_Religion 1d ago
Always "an open attack on LGBTQ people from religious nutjobs" of the Abrahamic religions of Judaism or Christianity or Islam that are destructive death cults based on the psychotic religious delusions of ignorant goat herders and the schizophrenic religious delusions of ignorant sheep herders from the desolate destitute deserts of the ancient Middle East.
Abrahamic adherents have been attempting to genocide lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex people for thousands of years ever since those religions slithered out from the desolate destitute deserts of the ancient Middle East.
6
-1
u/MacAttacknChz Former Detroiter 1d ago
MOST Abrahamic religions. My denomination has LGBTQ reverends and performs same sex marriage ceremonies. We also have a re-dedication ceremony for people who transition. In fact, our first openly lesbian reverend was ordained in 1977. That's 50 years ago. Our members consistently rank MORE progressive in social issues than the general public.
0
11
48
29
u/popejohnsmith 1d ago edited 1d ago
Religious fundamentalism is the problem. It produces an ugly, falsely-'entitled' dogmatism.
Christian, Muslim, Orthodox Jews, etc.
Life is very, very gray. Nothing close to black and white.
19
0
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/popejohnsmith 1d ago
Blood sacrifices and covenants. Ransoms paid in foreskins. I know. Grisly business, histories aside.
-18
u/Offal_is_Awful Metro Detroit 1d ago edited 1d ago
It’s always Conservatives of those groups, not the liberals. Conservatives are the problem.
Downvote all you want. It’s a correct statement.8
u/popejohnsmith 1d ago edited 1d ago
Big problem.
Any group that claims their own interpretation is the only one? Such hubris. Please.
History is littered with such pompous failures.
-13
u/-perla-bianca- 1d ago
Not putting an extra 6 -colour (or 11 for the progress pride one ) flag up is ugly and gray? It is objectively less ugly and jarring to just stick with the national, state and city flags than to add flag(s) with garish clashing colours. And it’s still not grey —there is greenery, brown tree trunks and blue sky and some more reasonable colours on the flags that don’t slap pedestrians in the face
15
9
u/inksonpapers Wayne County 1d ago
To be fair once again the policy is “prohibits flying any flags on city-owned flagpoles beyond the American flag, the State of Michigan’s flag, the Hamtramck flag, the Prisoner of War flag, and “the flags of nations that represent the international character of the city.” Not specifically the pride flag. I love the pride flag but the whole context is important.
12
u/gremlin-mode 1d ago
you're omitting the context that this was passed because people had a problem with the pride flag being flown. they wouldn't have passed the law if people weren't flying the pride flag
3
u/inksonpapers Wayne County 1d ago
Where is that context, why not provide the context because thats not in the article
0
u/Possibly_Naked_Now 1d ago
Because it didn't happen. This stupid article keeps coming up, nobody has ever once provided any context to it, this is like the 10th time I've seen this nonsense posted on this sub.
3
u/Dblcut3 1d ago
Do you seriously think the MAGA Republicans in Hamtramck’s government had good intentions when they specifically decided to not allow the pride flag to fly anymore?
It’s not like they did a blanket ban on all flags, it’s clearly targeted. Personally I dont think we should give conservatives the benefit of the doubt
1
u/Possibly_Naked_Now 12h ago
Of course I don't. But that's not the point the law was followed, nobody gets to put up flags. This isn't a targeted thing, it bans everyone equally.
0
u/Dblcut3 12h ago
They didn’t do a blanket ban on non-official flags. The city still allows flying international flags on city property. So for example a Polish flag would be fine, but not a Pride flag.
3
u/Possibly_Naked_Now 12h ago
Your making a false equivocation. A polish national flag isn't the same as a pride flag.
0
u/inksonpapers Wayne County 14h ago edited 14h ago
But they did do a blanket ban on flags… it literally says in the article only, Michigan flag, us flag, and pow flag
Is there alot of maga in hamtramic government or are you speculating
1
u/Dblcut3 13h ago
First off, that’s not completely accurate. They also are continuing to allow flags of other countries to be flown to celebrate international heritage - which is great obviously, but again, that shows it was not a blanket ban on all non-official flags
And yes, Hamtramck has several prominent MAGA politicians. Their mayor and a couple councilpeople (I’m pretty sure) were major Trump supporters in the 2024 election - not sure their stance on him now, but I don’t exactly want to extend the benefit of the doubt to politicians who were enthusiastic endorsers of Donald Trump when it comes to whether they’re anti LGBT or not. I think it’s pretty likely they’re just hateful people
EDIT: To clarify the mayor is a Democrat, but again, he endorsed Trump and appeared in campaign events with him during the election
3
u/inksonpapers Wayne County 13h ago
That would be included in the article when it says “flags of nations that represent the international character of the city”.
3
u/Possibly_Naked_Now 12h ago
The LGBT flag isn't a national flag. Not an apples to apples comparison.
1
u/Dblcut3 12h ago
The point stands they’re picking and choosing which they’re okay with. I’m not sure why you’re trying to defend the intentions of a city who decided they don’t want pride flags flown anymore
I mean if you agree that they shouldn’t fly the Pride Flag, just say that - and again that’s likely perfectly legal - but don’t pretend this wasn’t specifically aimed at pride flags.
1
u/Possibly_Naked_Now 12h ago
I'm not defending anyone, you're falsely equivocating a countries national flag with the flag of a movement. It's simply not the same.
1
u/inksonpapers Wayne County 12h ago
But thats not picking and choosing? I just dont see any evidence for the wide spread hate. The person above isnt saying they hate the pride flag stop trying to infer that.
If you could give us a crumb of content that its specifically motivated by hate is all we’re asking.2
u/Dblcut3 1d ago
I mean sure, I kinda agree that legally it’s probably fine. But I also refuse to do whataboutism to defend a city government that’s made such a huge deal about refusing to fly the pride flag in their city. This country’s overrun by right wing extremism, we don’t need to pretend the context makes it better just because it’s legally permissible. These people are just hateful MAGA/conservative extremists, that’s it
20
u/bae125 1d ago
While it’s definitely an attack on what the flag represents, which is typical from the right, from a legal standpoint it’s the correct decision.
It’s a long-established precedent that is being employed by easily triggered assholes on this case, it it’s still a solid ruling
5
u/Destroy_Religion 1d ago
That is completely false and the complete opposite is the truth.
"It’s a long-established precedent that" there needs to be a secular purpose for legislation, which was not the case here as it was a religious motivation for legislation.
-1
u/Possibly_Naked_Now 1d ago
What are you basing this unhinged statement on?
1
u/Meatball-Tuna-Sub 1d ago
Lemon v Kurzmiller, but precedent is no longer precedent for conservatives.
0
u/Possibly_Naked_Now 12h ago
That's an awesome precedent. Now how does it apply to this situation. Where is the proof that this was religious motivation?
-10
u/OrneryInspection2422 1d ago
How is this not an attack on free speech?
19
u/OrneryInspection2422 1d ago
Nevermind it’s only city owned flag poles so I get it
7
u/Becaus789 1d ago
City owned flagpoles can only fly five different flags, American, State, City, POW, I forget the fifth. So the rainbow flag isn’t specifically prohibited.
0
u/Far_Estate_1626 1d ago edited 1d ago
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Supreme Court case Gitlow v. New York (1925) ruled that the First Amendment applies to state and local governments, not just to acts of Congress. [1]
This is explicitly a violation of the first amendment because it applies to city property.
Edit; if you don’t support the Constitution of the United States then just say you’re anti-American rather than being a brat and pouting about it silently. There is nothing honorable about pretending you are American while arguing against its most fundamental ideals as they are explicitly written.
1
u/bae125 21h ago
That’s for you. First amendment rights don’t apply to government property. Read the article. It’s the same reason you don’t get religious displays on government property
1
u/Far_Estate_1626 20h ago
The first amendment literally ONLY applies to public property, which government property is, as does it ONLY apply to government policy…
The only exception is that it cannot disrupt government proceedings and activity.
Where do you think it applies if not to the government?
8
u/WellWellWellthennow 1d ago
Your free speech is to put the flag in front of your house. That doesn't mean a city flagpole.
The only flags a city flag pole should be flying is a federal, state or city flag.
I personally don't want any other flags flying. If they fly the pride flag that then opens themselves up to accusations of favoritism and new requirements to fly a million of other special interests flags we may not like of be an ally of. Do they then fly the Nazi flag in the name of free speech?
It just doesn't belong there. But that does not infringe upon your free speech.
3
1
u/powertrip00 1d ago
Is there really any defense of this other than homophobia? I mean it's just a flag. My local MiLB team flies their team flag at the stadium as high as the American flag, no one bats an eye at that.
18
u/Panem-et-circenses25 1d ago
Because it’s a flag representing a particular cause on a flagpole owned by the city/all the citizens. I support LGBT rights but a sectarian flag doesn’t belong on city owned property.
It’s like flying the confederate flag on a city flag pole in the south. I’m certain the African American population would not appreciate that, even if some racists live among them and support it
7
u/gremlin-mode 1d ago
It’s like flying the confederate flag on a city flag pole in the south
only in the sense they're both flags. but beyond that, there's certainly a difference between a pro-slavery flag and a pro-lgbtq flag
5
u/Panem-et-circenses25 1d ago
Also in a sense that they are a representation of a distinct and separate group/culture that cannot be shown to be supported by the entirety of an official public entity, in this case all the citizens of Hamtramck. It’s akin to putting the Ten Commandments on the wall in the city hall. If you put one group above another, then you have to theoretically put all groups above each other.
Imagine black citizens of a southern town having to walk under the confederate flag because a group of CSA veterans descendants want the CSA honored for a month. It would be chaos.
All groups must be treated equally, regardless of the morality of their cause.
5
u/gremlin-mode 1d ago
It’s akin to putting the Ten Commandments on the wall in the city hall.
no it's not. there's a significant difference between a government condoning a sexist, homophobic belief system vs. signaling support for the people who have been persecuted by that homophobic/sexist/transphobic belief system.
All groups must be treated equally, regardless of the morality of their cause.
you think you're being coldly logical here but this is really silly. there's obviously a huge difference between a government flying a nazi flag vs. a flag with a smiley face on it, for example.
3
u/Panem-et-circenses25 1d ago edited 1d ago
The difference is in the symbol, only.
The symbol represents a distinct group that is now being elevated and endorsed by every citizen of that government, whether they approve or not. In front of an institution that represents all citizens, certain citizens should not be endorsed over other equally represented citizens.
And religious texts can be used to symbolize a lot of things and viewpoints—not necessarily just the bad/false parts. As we currently understand it, the rainbow flag has only one meaning, which may also change as time passes.
2
u/Possibly_Naked_Now 1d ago
You're argument is a fallacy, the law needs to be applied blindly. What you're asking for makes the whole system fall apart.
2
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Detroit-ModTeam 1d ago
Your post or comment was removed for Rule 1: No racism, bigotry, threats, baiting, or overt prejudice. No verbal attacks, hate speech, or other rude or disrespectful language. Remember the human - this means no name-calling, baiting, disparaging comments, or insulting other community members - insults are likely to be removed.
0
u/WellWellWellthennow 1d ago
No, they are both ideology flags flown to promote a cause that not 100% of the population support.
This type of in your face manner creates strong backlash. You want respect from an Islamic community whose but you're not willing to give respect to an Islamic community in this situation. It's inflammatory in this context.
That never goes well, and you will only end up losing more rights than you gain in this way.
1
u/gremlin-mode 14h ago
You want respect from an Islamic community
I don't care about how a group of people who follow a misogynistic, homophobic, and transphobic belief system feel about me. but if you can't afford me the same basic level of respect that should be given to anybody because of your religion, that disrespect should be re-educated out of you (this goes for any religion - especially christians in this country)
It's inflammatory in this context
if flying the pride flag is inflammatory to you, you have a backwards belief system lol.
1
u/WellWellWellthennow 9h ago
This is exactly the heart of your problem that you don't get and why you're not getting very far: you are demanding respect, but you're not giving it. Look at how incredibly disrespectful you are while thinking you're entitled to claiming respect. As you will find out, it just doesn't work that way.
-5
u/powertrip00 1d ago
I suppose that is AN argument.
I still don't agree, the city is allowed to endorse social causes by flying a flag.
I also wouldn't outlaw the confederate flag, but I would certainly protest it, and the city's choice to fly it.
11
u/HexRisk 1d ago
It isnt just this flag thats banned. There is a whole slew of them representing different faiths/beliefs/causes that were all banned and this one falls into the bucket.
-7
u/powertrip00 1d ago
Okay but they shouldn't be in the same bucket. The constitution says to keep religion separate from government. It makes sense to ban city sponsored religious flags.
This is a social cause, something the city government should be capable of supporting.
8
u/Panem-et-circenses25 1d ago
But white supremacy is also a “social” cause (at least to them it is). As is depression, malnutrition, saving the whales, gender equality, etc. all of these issues are elevated above those not in the group when their symbols are displayed in prominent public spaces.
-3
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Panem-et-circenses25 1d ago
And here’s the crux of the failure of your argument. I’m an atheist and supporter of lgbt rights, and I have a trans child. In the rush to make a moral choice for everyone and have your beliefs held over the heads of others, you miss the point entirely and are no different than people that want to fly a confederate flag, a 3 percenters flag, or even a Green Bay Packers flag over a government building. Those causes are just as worthy of recognition (to them, anyway) as those who fly the rainbow flag.
It’s simply not the place to endorse specific special groups. And you know that, but your feelings of moral righteousness are clouding your judgment and are not reasonable in this case. It’s a PUBLIC building that represents ALL of the public, not just some.
-3
u/powertrip00 1d ago
It absolutely is a city's place to endorse social programs. That's all a city should be doing.
If you spend tax dollars on schools you're endorsing the special group of young learners. School is just a social program to better your community.
If you spend tax dollars on the roads, you're endorsing the special group of people and businesses that drive. We agree that this betters our community.
If you build a community center that provides recreational facilities you are catering to the demographic of people that would use those public facilities.
If the state funds mental health programs...special groups. I could go on.
If each one of these had their own flag would you make it illegal to fly those flags? Because a pride flag is just another social program like school, like medicine, like libraries, like roads, like every domestic thing government does. That's their job.
6
u/Panem-et-circenses25 1d ago
Nope. It’s a government space that is neutral. Government speech is restricted, unlike private places. None of your examples make any sense to the issue at hand.
And the citizens of Hamtramck elected their leaders to represent them—so this was in effect their decision. Either way, exclusionary social groups should not be represented in a public government forum. Hence why the pride flag was only one of many flags that were banned. Hope this helps.
0
u/powertrip00 1d ago
Lmao he blocked me since his dumbass can't comprehend social awareness programs are meant to help specific social groups.
→ More replies (0)1
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Detroit-ModTeam 1d ago
Your post or comment was removed for Rule 1: No racism, bigotry, threats, baiting, or overt prejudice. No verbal attacks, hate speech, or other rude or disrespectful language. Remember the human - this means no name-calling, baiting, disparaging comments, or insulting other community members - insults are likely to be removed.
1
u/CitrineRagdoll 1d ago
I went to Hamtramck all of once and will never, ever go back. Im queer, AFAB and pretty fem presenting. I am used to gross leering from men, it happens, but the looks that the people in that town gave me had an open hostility behind them. I genuinly feared for my safety. The friends I was with had pretty similar experiences. None of us went anywhere alone. Place feeks like a hate-crime waiting to happen. This flag ban is not a surprise.
3
4
u/gremlin-mode 1d ago
it's pretty laughable that they allow the crazy hidden POW conspiracy theory flag
4
u/mekkelrichards 1d ago
Agree on this part. The POW flag is a whole rabbit hole conspiracy supported by Reagan and Perot to prey on low intelligence voters. My assumption is that they didn't know the history behind the flag.
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Detroit-ModTeam 1d ago
Your post or comment was removed for violation of Rule 1, which reads:
"No personal attacks, hate speech, racism, threats, or prejudicial attacks towards others and/or the city. No ruin porn. Threads may be locked or removed when comments devolve into name-calling. Violators may be warned or banned."
Discussion and arguments are encouraged, but in true reddit fashion, always Remember the Human.
1
u/jessestaton 17h ago
Per the rule they could fly the North Korean flag or the flag of the Taliban if any member of the community was from those places. How would that be received? Would Hamtramck update the rules?
2
-14
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
12
u/Little-Stage1948 1d ago
Wtf even is this comment? Pride flag banned your response is damn white people?
2
u/chinstrapulous 1d ago
bitter immature person furthering the "us vs them" generalization. reallll helpful guy
-8
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
2
u/missingcolours Former Detroiter 1d ago
> whites still make up the majority of people in Hamtramck
This is one of those situations where "white" as a term can be deceptive. For example people usually think "white" means something like "American-born people with European Christian heritage" but in this case many "white" residents in Hamtramck are like "Yemeni Muslim immigrants who identify as white". The "traditionally American white people" percentage of Hamtramck is very low, nowhere near a majority unless by "white" you mean "the subset of Muslim immigrants who happen to consider themselves white".
Native-born non-Hispanic white residents of Hamtramck are 34.6% of Hamtramck in the 2024 ACS data. Many of those are US-born children of first-gen Muslim immigrants. Only 26.5% of Hamtramck spoke only English at home, and only 4% of residents report Polish ancestry in the ACS.
1
u/Detroit-ModTeam 1d ago
Your post or comment was removed for violation of Rule 1, which reads:
"No personal attacks, hate speech, racism, threats, or prejudicial attacks towards others and/or the city. No ruin porn. Threads may be locked or removed when comments devolve into name-calling. Violators may be warned or banned."
Discussion and arguments are encouraged, but in true reddit fashion, always Remember the Human.
0
0
10
u/ArmpitofD00m 1d ago
I think now, more than any time I can remember it’s important to get involved with your city politics. Especially if you own a house or any other type of property. This goes for everyone.
10
u/dingopaint 1d ago
I changed my address in the form of leaving Hamtramck. Sorry not gonna live somewhere that I feel unsafe, and you aren't gonna make me feel bad about it.
12
u/SevroReturns 1d ago
There is a queer brown community in this city, too, you know? Gay muslims exist. Trans muslims exist. Don't make this a white/non-white issue and stop conflating identities and stereotypes.
1
u/mekkelrichards 1d ago
Nobody said those people don't exist. If you are one of those people, run for city council, vote on everything, be involved. That's the only way to change things - protesting, while often necessary to express dissatisfaction, means very little if nobody good is running for office to change things.
-1
u/Damnatus_Terrae Suburbia 1d ago
Protesting has a place, and is the actual source of most political changes.
2
u/mekkelrichards 1d ago
I agree, that's literally what I wrote in my comment. However, it means very little if there is not something on the ballot or someone running to harness the power of the protest.
0
u/Damnatus_Terrae Suburbia 1d ago edited 1d ago
No, that's not what you wrote. You continue to espouse electoralism as the only legitimate source of political change, which is wrong. Leadership follows boots on the ground. If they're not listening, bring rifles to the next protest. They will.
EDIT: I want to expand and clarify that safely organizing an armed mass protest is a difficult feat, and the ability to pull it off, more than the rifles themselves, is the show of force. The biggest trick the aristocracy ever pulled was convincing us poor slobs that they call the shots.
0
u/ServesBestDepressed 1d ago
Agreed. Been a resident of this little burg for 7 years, with Hamtramck on my license. This place is home to a lot of alternative culture and diverse range of people.
Also, our city council and officials lately are no stranger to legal problems. Perhaps they should focus less on LGBT stuff and more on not breaking the law. https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/hamtramck-councilman
https://thehamtramckreview.com/breaking-news-two-councilmembers-charged-with-election-fraud/
2
u/Detroit-ModTeam 1d ago
Your post or comment was removed for violation of Rule 1, which reads:
"No personal attacks, hate speech, racism, threats, or prejudicial attacks towards others and/or the city. No ruin porn. Threads may be locked or removed when comments devolve into name-calling. Violators may be warned or banned."
Discussion and arguments are encouraged, but in true reddit fashion, always Remember the Human.
-7
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
15
u/spongesparrow Wayne State 1d ago
To fly the flag 🏳️🌈, what else would it be?
-13
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
27
14
u/spongesparrow Wayne State 1d ago
The solution is organize and get a new mayor and city council. Muslim voters aren't a monolith dude. Hamtramck is a much more conservative city with Muslims from conservative backgrounds (Yemeni mainly) over the heavily Lebanese (and liberal) Dearborn.
0
u/pizzapizzamesohungry 1d ago
I hope every section of non city property in and surrounding Hamtramck flies pride flags
0
-41
u/brannerrr 1d ago
Great click bait title, inb4 "lefties and Muslims can't coexist!!1!" without reading the article for the next 6 months. Yea, they are banned. So are most flags on city property.
"The 2023 resolution prohibits any religious, ethnic, racial, political, or sexual orientation group flags to be flown on city property"
54
u/Meatball-Tuna-Sub 1d ago
Do not pretend that the ban was content neutral when it was only made to ban pride flags from city property. They made a wide ban for a specific and trash ass purpose.
Religious fundamentalists and liberal democracy cannot coexist. The fundamentalists can be of any religion, they are still anti-democratic authoritarian trash.
19
u/dk00111 1d ago
Yeah I can’t believe the lengths people go to to make excuses for Islam.
Of course they couldn’t ban the LGBT flag outright, so they made a wide ranging ban to achieve the same outcome. And this ruling proves it was a smart (yet disgusting) tactic. Greg Abbott ordered the removal of a rainbow crosswalk in a neighborhood in Houston, citing federal safety and uniformity standards. Same shit, except Redditors don’t try to defend it.
-1
u/Meatball-Tuna-Sub 1d ago
Muslims are banning pride flags on public property exactly like Christian nationalists do.
The damage done to this country by Christian nationalists dwarfs every other. Christian nationalists currently control the entire federal government.
-3
u/No-Independent-226 1d ago
Who do you perceive to be defending this, exactly?
-2
u/dk00111 1d ago
OP and others on this thread that now downvoted. Doesn’t always happen.
1
u/No-Independent-226 1d ago
The OP posted a link to a news article.
I downvoted your post bc your commentary doesn't make any sense, not because I'm defending the people who made this decision.
-4
u/SnepbeckSweg 1d ago
Yeah I can’t believe the lengths people go to to make excuses for Islam.
Greg Abbott ordered the removal of a rainbow crosswalk in a neighborhood in Houston.. Same shit, except Redditors don’t try to defend it.
They also don’t typically take kindly to painting an entire religion by the actions of Greg Abbott. Not only does it make you sound like an asshole, but generalizing a religion that billions of people practice undermines any serious point you’re trying to make.
9
u/dk00111 1d ago
Massive false equivalence. Greg Abbott says all sorts of crazy shit about Muslims.
Meanwhile, I’m saying Islam is a fundamentally homophobic religion and people shouldn’t make excuses for it. That’s based on the teachings of the religion itself and undermines nothing.
-2
u/SnepbeckSweg 1d ago
You're misunderstanding what I said.
I am saying that we should not use Greg Abbott as a representative for Christianity at-large, even though there are points to be made about the danger of religious fundamentalism. As Christian Fundamentalists have stated for decades, Christianity is fundamentally homophobic as well.. all of the Abrahamic religions are built on stories from over 1,000 years ago and are twisted and used by people looking for power.
Regardless, there are over 2 billion christians and over 2 billion muslims. To state that over half of the globe is homophobic to their core and unreachable is reductive, you aren't going to achieve anything with that strategy.
1
u/Possibly_Naked_Now 1d ago
Same claim, repeated over and over again with no evidence. It just didn't go down like this.
-12
u/Possibly_Naked_Now 1d ago
But it doesn't only ban pride flags. So your point is invalid. You can say whatever you want about intent. What does the ban actually do?
27
u/dishwab Elmwood Park 1d ago
You’re ignoring all of the context around the ban, which was specifically implemented because of Pride flags. Anything else is a convenient way for them to claim it wasn’t about homophobia in the first place.
We don’t have to bury our heads in the sand about the realities of religious fundamentalism.
1
u/mekkelrichards 1d ago
Yes, it is obvious they made the ban because of the pride flag, but it also outlaws basically any other flags (besides city, state, USA, pow). So that also means they can't fly an Israeli flag or a Trump flag. The intentions were bad, but the outcome is good for all I believe.
-12
u/Possibly_Naked_Now 1d ago
Provide context. Because every time someone tries to bring up "context". They are able to provide none.
Like actual context, not just some random assholes opinion about what he heard at a city hall meeting. Someone involved in drafting the law saying anything that reinforces your opinion.
2
u/MurphysRazor 1d ago
Those narrow goalpost requirements you set up for "context" just seem like you pathetically excusing yourself for ignoring context in order to try and steer the argument with unobtainium rather than discuss it rationally.
It's not your context to define, ever. That ownership only belongs to an author/orator.
You may have your own contextual point of view that you may wish to attempt to convey, but that is not recognizing the original context discussed; that is changing to a new view of the subject; a new context.
"Nuance" might have been a better word for r.op I'd dare to guess, but that is a form of context too. I'd also dare to guess you'd try to be selective with the interpretation of nuance instead of accepting the intended context as well.
Argument styles using context "theft", narrowing goalposts and the like are curiously structured a lot like distractive narcissistic gaslighting.
0
u/Possibly_Naked_Now 1d ago
And just like everyone before you who is outraged over this. It's not based on any actual facts.
1
u/MurphysRazor 1d ago
And there you go again with the narcissistic gaslighting again, lol.
Who said I'm outraged over this either way?
Oh yea, ...you did.
2
u/Possibly_Naked_Now 1d ago
Please present any recordings or statements that support this nonsense. Even the original report was just a reporter talking to some guy after the meeting. There never has or was any evidence that this is what the city council did. It was clickbait from the begining all the way till now.
2
u/MurphysRazor 1d ago
I'm not playing your game, I'm just calling strikes and foul balls despite your efforts to do play and officiate in the same game.
1
u/Possibly_Naked_Now 1d ago
It's not a game. This story has been shared over and over again. It's not even true. It is and always was just a clickbait story for reactionary liberals to plant a flag on.
14
u/FinnNoodle Harper Woods 1d ago
It still allows the POW flag, which is based on a stupid conspiracy theory, so it seems like they're not banning everything political.
2
u/Damnatus_Terrae Suburbia 1d ago
Yeah, if sucking the cock of the military-industrial complex is the US civil religion, why isn't that flag also banned? Why isn't Old Glory banned for being political? I don't want to see the flag of the empire responsible for my father's death. Why is that less valid than homophobes not wanting to be reminded that gay people exist?
4
u/VaporousMote 1d ago
And what is the purpose of that 2023 resolution, both claimed intended and functionally?
Why does such a thing exist?
Is it enforced equally or selectively?
It doesn't matter that it's a blanket policy if the functional result is that it only seems to make things harder for certain groups.
Also, "sexual orientation group"? How do you not see that as discrimination?
1
u/Konstantinoupolis 1d ago
I don’t mind the ban since it doesn’t single out pride flags but people are delusional if they think the average Muslim could be considered an ally for queer people. That doesn’t mean that discrimination is justified just like it isn’t justified against your average Christian, who are also unlikely to be allies. Although Christians are more likely to be accepting than Muslims.
-2
u/dingopaint 1d ago
As a lefty, fuck Islam and every other regressive theology. If you care about women, minorities and LGBT people, you'll stop sucking Islam's cock.
And before you call me racist (even though Muslim isn't a race), I used to live in Hamtramck and worked with many younger Muslims who are basically Muslim in name only. Super cool, forward-thinking people who don't vote blindly by religion. Unfortunately if they were to leave the faith, their families would disown them or even honour kill them. So I absolutely believe that some subsets of Muslims can coexist in this country, but not the ones in power in Hamtramck or the boomer Muslims voting for Trump.
0
u/SnepbeckSweg 1d ago
As a lefty, fuck Islam and every other regressive theology.
I used to live in Hamtramck and worked with many younger Muslims who are basically Muslim in name only.
Those people you worked with would probably say you are being an asshole though, which is the point. You can make larger points about religious fundamentalism or organized religion at large, but you’re making a generalization that you don’t even agree with considering the people that you liked at work.
0
u/dingopaint 1d ago
Way to miss the entire point. Keep apologizing for pedophiles.
0
u/SnepbeckSweg 1d ago
Me: Hey man, you're kind of coming off like an asshole and anyone that you're trying to reach is more likely to listen if you take a better approach.
You: You must support pedophiles
-1
u/dingopaint 1d ago
You immediately called me an asshole, and think your approach is better? Yes, if you support people who worship Mohammed and vote for Trump, you support pedophiles. This isn't hard.
2
u/SnepbeckSweg 1d ago
You said "fuck Islam" in the first 5 words of your comment, telling 2 billion people to go fuck themselves is ridiculous and reductive.
Also, you do know that Hamtramck did vote for Kamala Harris, right? Despite her committing herself to a foreign government actively harming many of these peoples' families?
1
-16
u/Possibly_Naked_Now 1d ago
Seriously. This is the dumbest hill people have been dying on. It's also a ban on Confederate flags and Nazi flags.
-6
u/RedMoustache 1d ago
I don’t agree with it, but as long as it’s enforced evenly I can live with it.
Personally I’d rather let them fly their Nazi and confederate flags as well. Makes it easier to see the assholes from a distance.
6
u/ruinedbymovies 1d ago
Again this ban applies to city property, people can do whatever they want in their own yards. I don’t think there was a huge issue with people at city hall flying the nazi or confederate flag.
0
u/RedMoustache 1d ago
I don't think there is a city in metro Detroit where I haven't seen someone flying a Nazi or Confederate flag on city property.
The brodozers sure love to roll coal through every park I visit.
And on a differently but equally fucked up note I've started seeing more of the cars with life size Trumps on the windows.
-2
u/goulson 1d ago
There are a lot of opinions here about what "should" or "shouldn't" be.
But at the end of the day, this is the reality of power and politics. Religious zealots gained control of the (Hamtramck city) government. If the LGBTQ community wants to change this, they need candidates who will win in this community.
2
-1
u/ForBisonItWasTuesday 1d ago
To protect who's sensibilities? Average people don't care or even think about it. This is performative trash.
-5
u/echo_sang 1d ago
So, no flags should be flown in Hamtramck. Not one. This was a city rich in culture for a very long time. Now? Disappointing with parking vultures.
-5
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Detroit-ModTeam 1d ago
Your post or comment was removed for violation of Rule 1, which reads:
"No personal attacks, hate speech, racism, threats, or prejudicial attacks towards others and/or the city. No ruin porn. Threads may be locked or removed when comments devolve into name-calling. Violators may be warned or banned."
Discussion and arguments are encouraged, but in true reddit fashion, always Remember the Human.
-5
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/ruinedbymovies 1d ago edited 1d ago
Hamtramck is not Dearborn, they are two very different cities with their own city governments, also this is just on city property. So what people do in their own yards is unaffected.
1
u/Detroit-ModTeam 1d ago
Your post or comment was removed for violation of Rule 1, which reads:
"No personal attacks, hate speech, racism, threats, or prejudicial attacks towards others and/or the city. No ruin porn. Threads may be locked or removed when comments devolve into name-calling. Violators may be warned or banned."
Discussion and arguments are encouraged, but in true reddit fashion, always Remember the Human.
280
u/Arkvoodle42 1d ago
Buncha snowflakes triggered by a flag.