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.
read more: https://www.advocate.com/news/connecticut-pride-flag-ban-isis
Fox, OAN, NewsMax, etc. Those are gateways to the Christian Taliban… I mean ISIS. Same thing.
Y’all Qaeda is a bigger threat to the world than any Afghanis ever were.
Y’all Qaeda
That got me laughing to the point of having a coughing fit.
retards of a feather flock together
its ironic that vanilla isis is talking shit about original flavor isis, trying to imply that their shared boogie man wants anything to do with either kind of crazy religious right wingnuts
The most amazing part is that they’ve resolved all of the more important issues and have the time to consider what flags should be allowed to fly at government buildings.
Right? I mean how negligent would it be to prioritize passing an approved flags list while issues that affect their constituents still need attention.
Plus, notice the absolute freedom these people are enforcing. Republicans, truly the people who still take freedom and self-determination serious! Not like those Democrafts who always want to legislate everything and have rules and bans and shit! Just let people do what they personally want, the republican way.
(Can we please just shove them all into the ocean already? Nothing of any value will be lost and we also reduce the carbon footprint a little bit.)
Oh, the carbon footprint will be drastic.
I suspect those are the people who shun any climate science, and instead will do the opposite of anything told to do.
“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.’
Yep, that sounds like a typical conservative. Mind is just a jumble of terrified nightmare-fantasies about the big bad de jour that wanders off into total nonsense without any notice.
ISIS could come in and want to display one
I don’t think ISIS supports LGBTQ+…
What are we supposed to do with these conservatives? They can’t be debated with, they don’t have the concept of logic.
Rethink what you mean by “what are we supposed to do?”
You’re not going to convince them, you’re not going to change their mind, you’re not going to find the one flaw that shakes them from their delusion. Because conservativism is not founded on principles. A conservative is a narcissist, and should be treated as such. Ignore their tantrums, protect yourself and your interests, set boundaries and stick to them. Their arguments are flotsam flung from whatever position they think will help them most. Ignore them, it’s all bullshit. Their priorities are lines in the sand drawn around where they stand. Ignore them and do what you know to be right. Do not compromise, do not waver, do not negotiate. That’s a losing strategy every time, because their appetite for self interest is never sated. Their lust for power will grow with every inch you cede.
They are not an enemy to be vanquished with thoughtful debate, they are an obstacle to be overcome with tireless devotion to doing good.
Also do not seek revenge. Do not say “they have hurt me, I must hurt them.” The conservative craves your attention and will feel validated by your wrath. “See?” they will say, “I knew you were as bad as me. You criticize me, but we are the same.” Forgive them, and move on with your life. A conservative may learn that being kinder to others benefits themselves. This doesn’t mean they are cured of their conservativism, merely that they have adapted to the new normal where you aren’t playing their games. They will pretend they were on your side all along. They will claim to have been confused or lost or fooled, but they are merely deflecting blame for their willful ignorance. You can enjoy the time they spend feigning compassion, but be vigilant against the selfish gremlin inside waiting to latch onto any advantage they can find for themselves. If you give a mouse a cookie…
Or just fucking punch 'em… a lot less work.
It’s not about issis supporting lgbt+ but about having to allow any flag if you allow one.
What fucking country do they think they’re in?
Right except that isn’t true. Having a public space to display a flag doesn’t mean that all flags are open to be displayed. Meanwhile, as the article clearly states, this so-called attorney was yelling against trans people.
How and who decides what flag is open to be displayed and how much more backslash would a council group have to accept for having to decide on this?
I agree though, that the attorney is wrong in going into a personal rant about schools brainwashing lgbt+ into children.
It’s the decision to limit what flags a public organisation flags (and ideally what ideas they support). IMO they should be completely neutral in regards to anything
The council is supposed to decide that. They are supposed to do their fucking jobs. They wanted to make decisions? Go make them and live with those decisions. They made a shitty one and I hope they get shit for it. If they aren’t capable of that they shouldn’t hold that position.
And no the solution isn’t to be neutral because there is not two morally equal sides in this. This isn’t arguing if a certain tax rate should be 5% or 6% or if the library should get a bathroom upgrade this year or the next year, this is arguing that a portion of our population doesn’t have the right to exist. And furthermore that children need to be trained to ignore them as they said minority is harmed. How do I know this? Because the fucker said it.
I am not particularly invested in this case as you are. I can only discuss based on this article and although the attorney vented off topic anti-trans arguments, the rest of the council don’t need to share his opinions. This is not about the right to exist. Its about a flag on the city hall. They have forbitten all other flags but the US flag, the state flag and military flags. I’ll leave this conversation now, because it seems like we’ve gone through what there is to go through
This is about the right to exist. The Christians in this country want the LGBT to fuck off and die with as little noise as possible. That’s why Reagan and co LAUGHED as AIDS killed them and that’s why the Christians in this town decided to not even make a tiny little gesture, that hurts no one, just acknowledging that they exist.
That so-called attorney said the quite part loud.
Go listen to YOUR Christians buddies laugh it up; https://youtu.be/wd1x0PFBeSU?si=MBhzefe15NikZfdZ
How is this different than a city saying “if we allow you to fly a flag for the Steelers, what’s next, a Nazi German flag?” Any reasonable person can see that there is a clear line between something like a flag that supports an innocuous mainstream idea and a flag representing a terrorist organization, it’s ridiculous and clearly motivated by bigotry. Cities and towns have been displaying rainbows in various forms for years during pride month and I haven’t seen any inch of progression towards right-wing Islamic terror groups being supported also.
The post is about flagging in public buildings. I can’t imagine public buildings setting up a flag for the steelers and not doing so for any other team.
I expect the issue is, that you can’t expect reason especially when it’s in up to the public. People and organisations will find ways to exploit this.
It must be great to live in a place that has so few real problems that the town can waste time with bullshit culture war distractions.
Oh I’m sure they have plenty of problems, but it’s probably only minorities and poor people who experience them so who cares!
Noisy “news” like this are actually really good at hiding a lot of real problems. Especially chronic ones that are “old news”.
They’re just stringing together words at random at this point.
ChatGTP is more coherent.
I’d take hallucinating ai over conservative official any day. At least the AI isn’t trying to fuck the children
You might have a point.
It actually is.
I hope no one emails or calls him about this issue by going to this link
https://www.enfield-ct.gov/directory.aspx?EID=699
Please please no one use *67 before dialing. Please no one go to the million or so temporary email boxes and email him. Please please don’t make your voice heard and stand up for a minority being attacked in our midst. Remember to say nothing about the oppression of x unless you are a member of x. Please do not set an alarm on your phone as a reminder to call once a day. Please go gently into that good night and let the fascists win by a million cuts.
I’m doing my part!
Thank you for that. It is so important that small evil people are allowed to quitely harm the world without being called out on it.
Also no one go to his person website and do it
“ISIS is gay.”
Proceeds to hoist a military flag
Is this town a modern warfare 2 lobby?
ban all flags from flying at government buildings save for the United States, Connecticut state, and military flags
Ah yes, military flags, very neutral. It’s great that conservatives are super neutral and yet they shit on people’s desire to not promote war, imperialism and genocide.
But people died for those flags! /s
Pretty silly to die for a piece of cloth.
Religious Fascists claiming non-Fascist symbols are a gateway for other Religious Fascists.
Satire is dead!
The party of freedom to take away everyone else’s freedom!
The word for people who care about individual liberties is “liberal”.
The right tells us they are not liberal. Believe them.
So that is a violation of the first amendment
Not necessarily, since this is a government building it would be the government’s speech, and they clearly don’t want to fly it. They aren’t preventing people from flying it on their personal property.
That said, there’s a clear likelihood that this is purely anti-lgbtq sentiment in action.
…ISIS, which I’m not sure even exists anymore, a terrorist organization infamous for among other things murdering gay people… Is Pro-Pride Flags?
Son, what kind of shit are you on?
Not sure how you came to this, unless you only read the title. According to the actual post content, the argument is, that if you allow one you can’t discriminate and will have to allow any.
The braindead, completely deranged “argument”.
We’re having a similar situation in our public schools. It started with schools being asked to serve foods that Muslims could enjoy too. This is fair and understandable. A good 10 years later, it’s hard not to have to offer vegetarian, vegan and gluten-free alternatives. This is mayne also fair if you’re paying for it (?) but when it is a publicly funded organization it’s expensive at the cost of all of us. It’s the principle of opening up a little and can’t close it up again even when for reason
How DARE our tax dollars be used to feed Kids! Allergies are FAKE! It’s Peanut Butter Monday!
No I think you misunderstand. I love and expect tax (money not dollars) to go into feeding kids. It’s just that you need to set a line somewhere. I live in a country where edubation and medic care is free. You get paid for taking a free education. Its perfectly fine with me. But if you’re forced to serve 4 different meals in order to satisfy everyone, it weakens the system for everyone. In any way it’s an example of setting standards for all. You can’t accommodate for one and not for all.
So, would you be in favour of serving only vegetarian or vegan meals, then, which a larger portion of the population could eat?
If the majority of people needing serving, were vegetarias or vegans, then yes. But i don’t see why you keep pecking at this example, when the argument is about the public organisation not being able to differentiate on their treatment of the public. This is not about feeding. Its about not being able to say one flag is ok for the town hall to use, but an other one is not. I think its a fair point!
LMAO
You seriously believe the shit that you wrote. This is simultaneously sad and worrying.
As someone else pointed out all of those dietary restrictions can be due to allergies, I think it would be pretty fucked up to fund lunch for students but not allow those with allergies to get lunch at school. Even if only one student at the school has a specific diet that needs to be catered too, that wouldn’t be different than having one student that was blind being given the same opportunities at the public school in my view, and whatever small cost it might increase to do this is worth it to properly feed children.
You describe the sliding slope perfectly. I’d argue that the state should offer cash support for people with allergies like this. But you can’t expect all schools to prepare sepperate dishes for any allergies (be it gluten, shellfish, nuts etc) and on top of this to chosen preferences like vegetarian, vegans etc. That’s how our (I live in Scandinavia) accommodate for children (and adults) with disabilities. People are offered help for what the need help with bit don’t offer the same helt for everyone. My example is not against treating others well. It’s about not discriminating. You can’t treat one well and not everyone else
I agree that a school doing each individual students meal like that would be inefficient, and yeah it’s better if you have a rare allergy or condition to just prepare food yourself haha. I think there are larger groups that can be recognized that have specific diets like kosher, halal, vegetarian etc that are not so rare that it isn’t a massive undertaking to have that as well. Maybe like if a certain percentage of students have a diet the school would prepare that.
I am not that much into school diets. But I know there is more to it than meets the eye. They, as far as I know, consider energy intake, vitamins, where the products are sourced and also try to effecrivate purchases so that they can maintain a budget. But again. The example was only to illustrate that you have to set a line somewhere, and decide who you can accommodate for or not. Not accommodating for any is the easiest way not to have to explain.
deleted by creator
I am not against people making their own choices. But expecting the public system to accommodate for said choices, risks draining the wellfair system. I understand that this may be difficult to explain to people from different countries but living in a country where almost everyone can expect help for anything in their life, adding “autonomic preferences” that cost the system even more, is not viable.
What I’m trying to explain is, that you can’t differentiate once you open up for one
School lunches “risk draining the welfare system?”
If your populace requires different accommodations then you meet them, that’s why taxes are paid. If you’re not meeting the expectations of some members of the populace, then they should selectively be allowed to skip tax payment allotments to you.
Well - this is where we obviously dissagree. I don’t believe that a system can be expected to accomodate for any personal prefference or need. I do believe that it should try, but there are also considerations about the costs not affecting the level of service offered to the genneral public.
What are you on about? A representative or democratic system is made for its constituents, and the ideology of the Pride Flag is supported by the U.S. Constitution. There’s no issue here other than religious fundamentalism against gays and trans etc., which actually is explicitly prohibited by the U.S. constitution because technically the U.S. is not a theocracy.
Immediately followed by a transphobic rant that I’m sure was completely unrelated.
Ugggh, so I really don’t want to be on their side with this, but… I kind of agree that the only flags that should fly in government buildings is US, state, and military flags. There also shouldn’t be religious wall decorations like the Ten Commandments or crosses. There shouldn’t be Confederate flags. There shouldn’t be state university flags. It’s a government building, and it should represent everyone equally, and not promote any cause, group, or religion except explicitly what is part of the government.
I reeeeeeally don’t like the reason they want to ban it, but I think it would be great for every government building to adopt those standards.
I think the government has an obligation to represent oppressed minorities, including their symbology when appropriate.There is no such thing as neutrality, and even if it wasn’t for regressive reasons it would still be a regressive policy.
IMHO, the crucial difference is that the LGBTQ pride flag isn’t saying the gays are the best. It’s merely asking for equal treatment, for human rights. A government which does not agree with those goals, which does not work for the equal treatment and human rights of all its citizen, is being partial in precisely the way you describe.
deleted by creator
Honestly, I’d personally be fine if they dropped military, too. But it is, at least, part of the government.
deleted by creator
Probably should sue the town for violating 1A rights.
Right wingers love to pull that one out of their arse, would be funny to see them trying to cope with that.
The Supreme Court is clear that 1A only applies to religion.
