“Republicans Are Sickening”: Hamtramck Faces Fierce Backlash Over Pride Flag Ban

Gabriel RomanNov 14, 2023

Minute Read

In the small city of Hamtramck, Michigan, a recent decision by the city council to ban Pride flags on public property has sparked a heated debate and led to a federal lawsuit. Two former Human Relations Commission members filed this lawsuit. It challenges the constitutionality of the ban.

Lawsuit Filed Against City’s Ban

Former commission members Russ Gordon and Cathy Stackpoole have taken legal action against the city. They believe that banning the Pride flag from public spaces goes against the principles of the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Their stance is that unconstitutional laws should not be followed.

Unanimous Vote by Muslim-majority Council

In June, the Hamtramck City Council, comprised of Muslim members, voted unanimously to prohibit Pride flags on public property. They reasoned that LGBTQ+ individuals are welcome in the city. However, they argued that displaying the Pride flag might infringe upon the religious freedom of others.

Strengthening the Legal Battle for Gordon and Stackpoole

In their fight against the city’s resolution, Gordon and Stackpoole have secured the support of Attorney Marc M. Susselman. Susselman filed the lawsuit after the pair were dismissed from their roles for openly defying the council’s ban by displaying Pride flags. According to Susselman, this protest demonstrates their commitment to what they believe is a fundamental right.

Exploring the First Amendment Argument

The heart of the lawsuit lies in the claim that the ban infringes upon the First Amendment, a cornerstone of American freedom. By allowing the display of certain flags, such as those representing nations or prisoners of war, yet excluding others, the city council is seen to have excessive control over public expression. This selective allowance, the suit argues, essentially picks and chooses which messages are allowed, affecting people’s right to free speech.

Amplifying the Equal Protection Clause Concern

According to Gordon and Stackpoole’s legal team, the specific exclusion of the Pride flag represents a discriminatory act against the LGBTQ+ community. They argue this targeted ban singles out their symbol of pride. They also believe it sends a message of exclusion, violating the principle of equal protection under the law.

Pursuing Restitution and Reform Through the Lawsuit

Gordon and Stackpoole’s lawsuit represents a broader fight for justice and reinstatement. They are demanding to be returned to their positions on the Human Relations Commission. They claim their removal was an unjust response to their stand against what they view as an unconstitutional law. They aim to overturn the ban and correct the consequences they faced for opposing it.

Mayor Ghalib’s Firm Stance Against the Legal Action

Mayor Amer Ghalib of Hamtramck took a firm stand against the lawsuit. He described it as a diversion from the city’s progress. He defended the council’s decision, stressing their resolution’s legal and constitutional validity. According to Ghalib, the city’s policy is designed to avoid favoring any particular group, thereby maintaining an unbiased use of public spaces.

Drawing Parallels with Shurtleff v. Boston

In his defense, Mayor Ghalib points out the distinctions between this case and the notable Shurtleff v. Boston case. He clarifies that, unlike in Shurtleff, where the city faced accusations of selective enforcement, Hamtramck’s approach is uniform – no group-specific flags are allowed on public property. He claims this shows the city’s commitment to impartiality and equality.

Challenging the Claim of Neutrality in the Ban

However, the lawsuit presents a different perspective, stressing the selective nature of the allowed flags. The plaintiffs argue that this selective permission to display certain flags while banning others clearly violates the First Amendment. They argue that this act of selective allowance undermines the very neutrality the city claims to uphold.

The Impact of the Ban on Pride Flags in the Community

The aftermath of the Pride flag ban has seen a disturbing trend in Hamtramck, with several Pride flags being torn down or vandalized on private properties. This development adds a real and troubling dimension to the controversy. It shows the tensions and divisions that have surfaced within the community in response to the council’s resolution.

The “No Flags at All” Perspective

Some argued that only the American and state flags should be displayed. They saw this as a means to maintain a straightforward and unified approach in public spaces. “People need to stay in their own lane and quit pushing this crappola on those who don’t want to see the stuff,” they commented.

The Simplicity Argument for Public Spaces

The idea of simplicity in public property use was echoed by another community member who stated, “That crap should not be on public property. Simple.” For some, they have a preference for keeping public spaces neutral. They believe that such areas should be free from symbols that might be seen as divisive or representing particular groups or causes.

Addressing the Design Critique of the Pride Flag

Some users have focused their criticism on the design of the Pride flag. One user called it “a crayon mattress sale banner,” poking fun at its appearance and suggesting a lack of seriousness or unity in its design. This perspective goes into critiques of its aesthetic and symbolic value.

Highlighting Accusations of Political Ignorance

The debate has also stirred strong political reactions, with one commenter sharply attacking Republicans. They said, “Republicans are sickening ignorant things! They think they can have their cake and eat it, too. I guess it comes from inbreeding.” Displaying symbols like the Pride flag can ignite intense political and social disagreements.

Discussing the Right to Cause Discomfort

One voice highlighted the importance of free expression, even at the cost of discomfort. They said, “Just because you don’t like something or don’t agree with something doesn’t mean that is violating your rights. People are 100% allowed to do something that makes others uncomfortable as long as they don’t violate the other person’s rights while doing it.”

Questioning the Overemphasis on Symbols

Other users encouraged reflection on the importance placed on symbols. They pointed out that many people are more concerned with daily issues than symbolic representations. “At least all the LGBTQ and other friends I have think so,” they added. This perspective suggests balancing symbolic representation with practical, everyday concerns.

Debate on Religious Freedom and Public Expression

Religious freedom emerges as a key concern for the Hamtramck City Council in the debate surrounding the Pride flag ban. They argue that flying the Pride flag goes against other people’s religious freedom. This statement reveals the council’s effort to balance the expression of LGBTQ+ rights with the religions of the community.

Community Responses to the Vandalism of Pride Flags

Following the incidents where Pride flags on private properties were vandalized, community members expressed their concerns. One person noted, “It’s not just about a flag. It’s about respecting each other’s expressions and choices.” This reaction highlights a call for mutual respect and tolerance in the community.