543

Flying the Pride flag is a gateway to ISIS, a Connecticut official claims as town passes ban (www.advocate.com)

submitted 9 months ago by tree@lemmy.zip to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

73 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A Connecticut town council voted to ban the LGBTQ+ pride flag in government buildings almost immediately after coming under Republican control.

The Enfield Town Council voted in a meeting Monday to ban all flags from flying at government buildings save for the United States, Connecticut state, and military flags. The new policy, which went through with a vote of 6-5, replaces a 2022 policy that allowed the rainbow flag to fly during Pride Month in June.

While some the council members pushing the policy claimed to do so as a way to remain "neutral," Councilor At-Large Gina Cekala, who voted against the measure, accused them of directly targeting the LGBTQ+ community and Pride flag.

“I think the real reason is you don’t want that Pride flag up on this town hall,” she said, “which is absolutely disgusting."

Tom Tyler, the interim town attorney, claimed at one point that if the the Pride flag was allowed to be flown, “ISIS could come in and want to display one, the IRA…basically anybody. You’d have to be content neutral and let everybody." He then went off-topic to accuse schools of trying to indoctrinate students with “transgender ideology.”

The decision came as a betrayal to many of the town's residents, including Brandon Jewell of PFLAG Enfield, who noted that two of the Republicans voting to ban flags previously voted in favor of the 2022 policy that allowed the Pride displays.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] moitoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 9 months ago

I'm figuring out how you come with these words together. I don't know. It's a new level of intellectual gymnastics.

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It's really easy if you rtfa

Tom Tyler, the interim town attorney, claimed at one point that if the the Pride flag was allowed to be flown, “ISIS could come in and want to display one, the IRA…basically anybody. You’d have to be content neutral and let everybody."

I don't agree with him in the slightest, but it's not like he's saying that being gay makes you a terrorist or something

[-] nifty@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The ideologies of terrorist organizations are incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, the ideology of the Pride Flag is not. His logic is flawed. And no, there isn’t any room for “someone else’s freedom fighter” etc. under the Constitution. The law has room for interpretation, but not to the degree that Tyler is arguing that it does. Secondly, debates on hypothetical scenarios have no bearings on the law or how it’s applied. This is why that town clerk who refused a marriage license has to pay a fine now. The town should be sued to allow flying the Pride Flag.

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

100% agreed. I'm just saying, it's just flawed logic. Well, really it's homophobia, but the claim that allowing one flag means you have to allow all flags is just flawed logic, not mental gymnastics.

[-] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago

debates on hypothetical scenarios have no bearings on the law or how it’s applied

This isn't true though, tons of hypotheticals showing up in and being relevant to the outcome of court decisions. Not sure the general "compatibility" of an ideology to the constitution is very relevant here either since afaik there isn't anything in there limiting what flags local governments can fly at government buildings, sounds like the deciding factor is whether the town council votes to allow a particular flag. Which would mean that what this guy is saying doesn't make sense either, if ISIS got elected in that town they could vote to put their flag up regardless of the previous policy.

[-] nifty@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

To be clear, I meant hypotheticals debated outside of the courtrooms have no bearing.

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe 2 points 9 months ago

It's just an excuse to ban LGBTQ+ expression, that's all, and the bigots know it'll work.

this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024

543 points (97.2% liked)

Not The Onion

12175 readers

652 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world