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