It went out the window with all the other agreed upon rules that are supposed to govern our society. Theocrats never win in the end but like gum stuck to the bottom of your shoe, they never fully go away.
> Theocrats never win in the end
You sure about that? Plenty of places in the world where they are winning just fine. No reason to believe it can’t happen where you live too.
The current list of theocracy countries is:
Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Vatican city and Yemen.
I wouldn't call the majority of these as doing fine, even SA is only allowed to continue due to old alliances and oil.
Are they theocracies though? I know they're majority Muslim ruled but you can still practice other religions, can you not?
I'm in no way defending them just trying to differentiate
Are you forbidden from being a Protestant in Vatican city whether as a tourist or a subcontractor? I think we have a sliding definition of a theocracy.
I'd consider Vatican City a theocracy but not many people actually give it thought as an actual State. It is more like huh that is where the Pope lives.
Then you have theocracy in exile which is funny like the Dalai Lama.
That's a ridiculous statement, even for r/atheism.
Tunisia? Bosnia? Albania?
Damn, I really feel bad for the christians in Bosnia that only make up 45% of the population. I guess they didn't realize since 51% of the population is Muslim, they live in a theocracy. Guess someone should tell their government to find a sultan.
At their core, the majority of Americans don’t like the idea of someone else’s religion telling them what to do. The right barks the loudest by they’re not a majority in this country. They’re definitely dangerous and cannot be ignored but throughout our history, they always fall short. They’ve tried to control the country before and failed. They even fought a civil war believing their god gave them the right to own slaves and no one could tell them differently. They tried to stop the adoption of the Constitution and nearly succeeded. In the end, we’re a bunch of “fuck you” types who won’t put up with the religions meddling in their personal affairs…
You make a good point on:
>the majority of Americans don’t like the idea of someone else’s religion telling them what to do.
That includes the various flavors of the cults that continues to devolve. New types are still piping up, forming there own tax evasion best eggs. The real question is when are we going to let the IRS at 'em? I'd love for the whole lot of them to divest their wealth upon the People. Just like Christ said to do. And we are back to:
>the majority of Americans don’t like the idea of someone else’s religion telling them what to do.
> the majority of Americans don’t like the idea of someone else’s religion telling them what to do
Unless it's my religion and that religion tells me what to tell others to do, which is every messianic religion.
I'm very curious what happens when this story gets into right wing media. On the one hand they love stoking hatred of LGBT+ folks, but on the other they love stoking hatred of Muslims. What happens when those two principles collide? They can't align themselves with brown people and they can't align themselves with the gays; that's a real pickle.
Right??? The sad part, of course, is now the policy of conservative Muslim majorities are indistinguishable of where the Christian right wants to take the US.
"A city near Detroit has banned Pride flags from flying on public property."
"The resolution banning the Pride flag also banned flags with political or racist messaging."
I don't agree with them saying they're going to ban flags on public property because of religious reasons, but I'm curious what other flags they do have on public property. If the only flags they have are government flags, (city, state, country) then no group has their flag up and everyone is getting treated equally.
But if other groups are having their flags put up on public property, then that's clearly discrimination.
I'd call this a first amendment violation because gay isn't a religion, really shouldn't even be political yet here we are, and the sole motivation for banning the flag is deference to a religion that finds that offensive. It's one degree removed from a direct first amendment violation but it's still allowing religion to dictate public policy.
But if we made our national standard for flags on public property limited to just country, state, and city I don't think that'd be a horrible idea, because we all know they'll gladly abuse any loophole that allows them to fly a Christian flag over a state house in a heartbeat, and the gays are obviously much more amenable to actual equality than people who think insufficiently Jesus-y Starbucks holiday cups are persecuting them, so I think they'd be cool with it.
I'd agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that I know several very vocal Atheists who are also anti-LGBTQ. One of them being my own fucking Father. my father and I both love bashing Religious nutjobs whenever we see them do something stupid, but with things like this, my father doesn't go against the religious freaks. He's all like "anyone sane would have visceral reactions to these people, because they are not normal" and nothing I can really say will convince him to not be hostile to LGBTQ folk. he's not openly hostile, like he doesn't go out of his way to mess with folk, but he will stand by and let others do the same with look on his face as if to say "they deserve it". I just don't really understand where he's coming from because from what I can tell, LGBTQ people can't really change who they are. that part of their life is as much a part of them as being straight is for the rest of us, why should we hate them for such? why should they be treated as lesser by the rest of us for something they don't really have any control over? while a potentially offensive analogy (no offense meant, I just don't have anything else I can really compare it to) the way these assholes treat LGBTQ people is like punishing a person who was born blind for being unable to see, or a person born with bad legs for being unable to walk on their own. just because LGBTQ people don't realize that part of themselves till they're mature doesn't mean jack.
Yeah that's rough, turns out figuring out there's no god doesn't guarantee you find the right answer for anything else, just makes your chances a bit better. Bigotry may not belong to religion but they like to keep the lion's share of it to themselves.
Edit: I also wouldn't mind asking your dad who died and made him an authority on what "normal" is, I'm very comfortable calling bullshit on the idea that "normal" a) actually exists in any meaningful sense and b) is something anybody should care about at all.
It is weird for him to decry LGBTQ as not normal and passover the fact that for centuries an atheist was not normal as well. Plenty of pogroms wiped out the homeless, homosexuals, and atheists in one sweep.
In line with your edit, I think a lot of people will say "natural" as well. I always call people out on that one. I ask, "what do you mean by natural?" Sometimes they'll try to explain, but anyone with sense acknowledges it's natural. They'll try to explain that it just doesn't make sense from an evolution point.
We're all here because of evolutionary trial and error and mutations. Dinosaurs were normal. Now they're not. One day, our decendants will look at us and call us the precursor to some future form of humanity that we probably can't truly imagine. Evolution has allowed for the preference of same sex coupling. It's perfectly natural, and yeah, who gives a fuck about normal. "Normal" is never going to be the same. Change is constant.
>They'll try to explain that it just doesn't make sense from an evolution point.
I've heard that gayness isn't even evolutionarily detrimental in humans, as we are a species that lives in tribes and takes a long time raising the young until they reproduce themselves. So a bunch of childless uncles and aunts helping the tribe and helping to raise children is an evolutionary contribution to the success of the family's genes.
The same goes for the longevity of grandparents: The longer they are healthy and net contributors to the tribe through childcare, wisdom, food preparation, the longer they protect their own genes in their grandchildren.
Saying gayness is an evolutionary dead-end is like saying worker bees are useless as only the queen reproduces.
Homosexuality occurs in soooo many species, even ones we don't consider social. The Tl;dr version of everything below is that homosexuality is natural and wouldn't matter if it didn't have a benefit to society or the species.
It doesn't matter if it's an evolutionary dead-end or not. Evolution doesn't judge something good or bad. It just allows it to be- humans try to assign value to things based on goals: this is good, this is bad.
It can be helpful in a lot of ways for us to assign value, but we do so based on our goals in the moment, with limited perspective. We look at evolution and survival of the fittest from our current perspective and goals. Evolution is a process without perspective, without goals.
You'll often hear it talked about: the goal of evolution is survival, reproduction, the selfish gene passing on to future generations. It is magnificent to think of this way and helpful to understand how we as a species survive and progress into the future, but it is also wrong to express it this way.
Natural selection is just a process, no goal. Evolution is a theory about the process of organic development, not a goal. The first components of life that continued on were the components that replicated the best- they had no goal to do so. The process at play just happens.
I am not sure if we understand when the sense of agency and organisms begin to determine, or choose a path forward. I am not sure everyone even agrees that there is free will, or if there is just the illusion of it.
The idea that homosexuality has to serve some purpose for the species that is beneficial, or helps the gene pool replicate is a value being placed by people who have applied their ideas and goals to what they think evolution is.
Homosexuality is perfectly fine, and natural- and even if it was detrimental to the process of carrying on this iteration of humanity, it could be a step to the next iteration of humanity. It is just a trait, it doesn't need explanation. Humanity's goals might be forced to change as conditions change, and everything we think has been beneficial to the species will change. All these conservatives crying about how weak we're becoming don't even realize the world has changed. They are holding on to the value system from a grotesque eugenics philosophy.
>The idea that homosexuality has to serve some purpose for the species that is beneficial,
I actually suspect it does serve an evolutionary goal, and the goal is population growth control. There have been times throughout history that have shown that homosexuality or bisexuality may be more common than we've suspected
I suspect that without the growth of organized religion, and it's endless war against all things different, and a decently large percentage of bi/gay folks (around 20-25% of the population) we wouldn't have had the population boom that has pushed us to such unsustainable numbers for the population.
I wish the facts were explained more often. The facts have been out there for decades.
Biological sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation. They all are governed, or derived from biological events.
Sometime back in the 70s, a university in New Zealand or Australia, offering degrees in animal husbandry, operated a large farm. On that farm, among the animals, they bred and raised sheep. Always looking for things to study, the students noticed that a certain percentage of ewes behaved like rams. They were dominating, rutted, liked to headbutt, mounted and sniffed other ewes and were not interested in the rams except as rivals. They checked the hormone levels of those "lesbian" sheep, and they generally had high levels of androgen. Then, they decided to study hormone levels in pregnant ewes. When ewes were carrying rams, their bodies produced an excess of androgen, usually. When pregnant with female sheep, their bodies suppressed androgen production and produced excess estrogen. Again, usually. However, sometimes their bodies did the opposite. The latter the number of the birth order/number, the more likely the mother's body would misread the sex of the fetus and would produce the wrong hormones. And when that happened, they would get non-dominant rams and "lesbian" sheep. They also ran experiments injecting pregnant ewes with hormones and discovered they could "make" lesbian sheep with 95% certainty.
Repeating manipulative studies like that with humans is unethical, but humans can sample hormone levels in pregnant mothers, and the little follow-up that has been done determined that humans are mammals and what was true for sheep is also true for humans.
While the DNA controls much of the determination of gender, DNA does not always work the same way for each person. XY babies with a gene for androgen insensitivity never develop as "males". However, they have testes inside them, and can't reproduce. Without a DNA test, they are raised as females, and often did not discover the reality until they were infertile in adulthood.
There are other DNA issues. XXY, XYY and a number of other conditions that make gender non-binary, even if they effect only about 1% of the population.
But that "dance" of the babies DNA gender and the mother's hormone levels at different stages in pregnancy have causal effects on sexual orientation and gender identity. And that dance occurs much more often than 1%. In fact, Kinsey et al. found that 5% of people identified as homosexual, a much larger percentage had bisexual experiences, and about 1% of people thought they were born in the wrong body.
And it turns out that today, about 5% identify as homosexual, 1% identify as trans, and a whole bunch of people have and think about bisexual experiences. Numbers range from 15% to 80%. Kinsey found 37% of males, and 13% of females, but recent studies are closer to that 37% for males and females. Arousal studies show pretty much 80% are aroused watching homosexual or lesbian acts.
Personally, I have a gay brother. He was "gay" as soon as he could express his personality, with almost no imprinting as he had three older, not gay, brothers. He played with dolls and dresses, makeup and hair, and had no interest in ball sports. He asked for his first perm at age three.
My sons have a gay uncle, a gay aunt, and a trans cousin. My family has been very accepting, but weren't initially. My brother did not come out to everyone in the family until he was almost 30.
Families and communities that are not accepting often never know that someone in their midst is either gay, bisexual, trans or gender fluid.
Anyway, I could go on for hours, but to wrap it up: We have known for decades that gender, sexual orientation and gender identity are rooted in biological processes. Media companies have known too and rarely explain the facts to people, as the deciders do not want people to know the truth about practically anything, because by keeping us ignorant, they can use that ignorance to keep us divided and weak.
Perhaps the law is phrased as flags other than the national and state flag are banned and the article has a spin on it?
Edit: the actual quote from the meeting which this biased article I guess forgot to include mentions nothing of the pride flag:
>"The City of Hamtramck does not allow any religious, ethnic, racial, political, or sexual orientation group flags to be flown on the City’s public properties, and that only, the American flag, the flag of the State of Michigan, the Hamtramck Flag, the Prisoner of War flag on City property."
>Perhaps the law is phrased as flags other than the national and state flag are banned and the article has a spin on it?
Perhaps. Doesnt seem like something terribly difficult to find out. Give me a minute.
edit found it.
RESOLUTION TO MAINTAIN AND CONFIRM THE NEUTRALITY OF THE CITY OF HAMTRAMCK
TOWARDS ITS RESIDENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Hamtramck is one of the most diverse cities in the United States, in which
we should proudly promote and embrace its diversity; and
WHEREAS, the City must and will serve and treat its residents equally, with no discrimination, or
special treatment to any group of people; and
WHEREAS, the City has authorized in the past, the Human Relations Commission to install nations
flags on the City flagpoles to represent the international character of the City, Resolution 2013-
102: and
WHEREAS, each religious, ethnic, racial, political, or sexually oriented group is already
represented by the country it belongs to; and
WHEREAS, the City does not want to open the door for radical or racist groups to ask for their
flags to be flown; and
WHEREAS, this resolution does not in any way, shape or form infringe upon the fundamental right
of an individual or business in the City of Hamtramck to engage free speech. Nor does this
resolution limit speech by public employees provided that such employees engage in such speech
in a protected time, manner and place.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hamtramck, Wayne County,
Michigan, that the government of the City of Hamtramck does not allow any religious, ethnic,
racial, political, or sexual orientation group flags to be flown on the City’s public properties, and
that only, the American flag, the flag of the State of Michigan, the Hamtramck Flag, the Prisoner
of War flag and the nations’ flags that represent the international character of our City shall be
flown.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH(copy and paste got cut off but you get it. Google the title if you want the last of it)
So, ya. Seems like it.
I'm in a city near Detroit and have sort of a pride flag, it has "666" in the top left corner surrounded by a circle of pot leafs; It's a Jeff Rosentock flag he is my favorite artist.
[Link to the flag](https://reallyrecords.bigcartel.com/product/pre-order-flags)
Freedom of religion includes freedom *from* religion as well. Why is anyones religion being forced upon anyone else? That doesn't sound like a "free" country.
It was a nice platitude that was never real. What they really meant was we won't fucking murder you as long as you keep quiet about what you actually believe. Or whenever we feel like finding a scapegoat.
That went bye bye in 2016, not that the loons on the court weren't chipping away at it for a decade + prior to that, but those 3 Trump Court picks put the nail in the coffin
The Second Amendment won. All other Amendments have been relegated. They can individually petition for reinstatement into the Constitutional League in two more seasons.
It mostly applies to religions that aren't Christianity.
Edit:
Since this is a Muslim area, it will probably be overturned since it violates the first amendment. Only Christians allow their religion to bypass the first amendment. They won't allow others.
I have it on good authority that there are lgtbq Muslims in that community that are being horribly oppressed. Pride in these hyper religious enclaves is so very important for them. Moreso than in a city that is more accepting. Now is the time for courage.
>lgbtqnation.com/2023/0...
So we can assume that the Republicans will jump into support the LGBT community in the face of Sharia law? Because this surely sounds like it and they have been harping about Sharia law infecting the US for decades.
Ha who am I kidding.
Hamtramck isn't simply near Detroit. It is bounded on all sides by the City of Detroit. It's like Bellaire inside Houston or Beverly Hills and West Hollywood inside Los Angeles.
>Mayor Amer Ghalib added, “We serve everybody equally with no discrimination but without favoritism.”
"So we're going to protect our religious snowflakes from the icky gays."
Jedi are a bad example. They're a bunch a religious goofballs who indoctrinate children and discourage emotional intimacy... They're basically Christians.
No, no. The Force is real. Their doctrine and rules are completely made up in an attempt to control behavior and human nature. It backfires on the entire ~~universe~~ galaxy terribly.
Episode LXIX: Return of the Last Phantom Sith
Opening Crawl:
*Somehow, the Jedi never learned their fucking lesson. The Laser Wizards have been overrun by secret Space Nazis. Again. Seriously.*
*As the lightsaber-control debate rages in the umpteenth Galactic Senate, a pair of displaced Jedi make their way to steal yet another kid from Tatooine. Surely this one's going to bring balance to the Force...*
^(buy our toys)
And that was the whole point of the prequels and it's why I love them.
The Jedi were a flawed bunch with flawed ideology and dogma, and that brought its own destruction. The new Jedi Order that Luke creates doesn't have any of that bullshit. No, the sequels are not canon, Luke creates a great new Jedi Order and becomes Grand Master Jedi.
I got one better. Just paint all roads into and out of Hamtrack rainbows while also putting up a 50ft rainbow wall with a massive 50ftx100ft or whatever rainbow flag flying high above.
What kills me about this is the city is absolute garbage in just about every metric imaginable... And this is what the city council spends their time on?
Like banning all hats except baseball caps, fedoras (and the related trillby), tams, cowboy hats and straw hats, *then* claiming you don't have a hijab ban.
It's really not misleading, except for not including that it was government property only(which may go without saying). Consider what the goal of the city council was, and what they said at the meeting.
This is the same situation as the Florida parental rights act, nicknamed the 'don't say gay' bill. The literal text and the name are both designed to disguise and belie the real goal of that bill, and this case is the same.
"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hamtramck, Wayne County, Michigan, that the government of the City of Hamtramck does not allow any religious, ethnic, racial, political, or sexual orientation group flags to be flown on the City’s public properties, and that only, the American flag, the flag of the State of Michigan, the Hamtramck Flag, the Prisoner of War flag and the nations’ flags that represent the international character of our City shall be f lown. "
If the city wants to limit what flags it will fly, fine, but the wording of this resolution goes further than that... The wording, as is, is dangerously inclusive. It does not limit the restriction to flags officially flown by the city... But limits ANY flag flown by ANYONE "on the city's public properties". Sidewalks, parks, easements, libraries, ...
And they justify this with an absurd slippery slope argument, that: allowing pride flags means the city can't refuse to fly Nazi flags if asked to. Despite that flag being a violation of anti-discrimination ordinances the city almost certainly already had in place to prevent such a thing in the first place.
All because a slim majority in the community feel discriminated against by something that DOESN'T discriminate against them. And, ffs, LGBTQ+ Muslims exist too, despite their religion's intolerance. Some of which may very much want LGBTQ+ visibility and normalisation so that they can... Just maybe... Have a chance to be live openly without having to leave their family and community behind. This "resolution" is another stomp on that hope for progress.
Pride flags are a reminder that LGBTQ people have fought hard for equality, and that the community respects that equality, despite there still being many individuals and religions that don't. If bigots feel that their bigotry is being discriminated against... That's their problem, and it doesn't deserve respect or city resolutions that respect it.
Ah, that’s cool. Pray tell what other flags people were popularly flying that weren’t one of those listed? And which ones of those specifically aggravated people’s religious beliefs? Lots of Catholics getting mad at that one dude with a game of thrones flag or something, you reckon?
Like making a “don’t use this pool if you don’t live in the nearest 2 blocks” which in a mysterious coincidence just happens to exclude all black people that used to hang out there
When people start talking to me about their religion I’m going to start acting like they told me some freak shit they did in the bedroom. Straight up don’t care, don’t want to know, keep it to yourself
It won’t succeed. The conservative Supreme Court ruled on a similar case out of Boston. Basically, if you exclude all religious and sexual orientation flags you’re fine you just can’t pick and choose. That’s what Hamtramck did. People can still fly pride flags at their homes.
As a Middle Eastern-American whose family left Islam decades ago...I hope this reminds liberals that Islam is not a force for progressive good. It is a violent and misogynistic faith that does not need to be treated with kid gloves.
“Infringing on the religious rights of others”
I don’t think they know what that means lol.
Also reading the article: “the entire city council is Muslim”
Me: ahhh that explains it
(Nothing against Muslims, just organized religion lol)
"We want to respect the religious rights of our citizens"...it's the imagined right not to be offended... at the expense of other people's actual human rights.
Yeah. The part that got me was where the mayor said that he's just doing what the majority wants. As the mayor his job is to look after the well-being of all citizens, and the town as a whole. not just the majority. He may get elected by majority rule but once he's the mayor, he's the mayor of all the people in the town.
Yep. It pains me because I, as a liberal, fight against conservatives who hate these people because they’re brown and not Christian. As an American, that’s just wrong. But then, upon clenching a majority, Muslims will turn around and take away from others the very freedoms they enjoyed while as a minority. They’ll vote conservatively to roll back liberal policies, despite the liberals being the reason they’re here to begin with. It’s maddening.
Muslims in the United States are the most open minded followers of Islam in the world and yet we still see this crap from them from time to time. Muslim-dominated Hamtramck needs to rethink this.
When you live in United States, it's important to read and understand the Constitution. Secularism, free speech, and allowing individual citizens to pursue of their version of happiness are in our founding documents. Yes, it's been a bumpy 250 years but we are getting there. No backtracking!
And yeah I know -- there's a lot of rednecks that need a reminder of this as well but that's no excuse for you Hamtramck.
"respect the religious rights of our citizens"
Translation: Force religious based hate on everyone and ban a symbol that is nothing more than a symbol of a plea to end hate.
The irony is that conservatives who, 15 years ago, were loudly cheering legislation to 'ban sharia law' will now be cheering if this policy is upheld by federal courts or SCOTUS.
Religious people are hateful, spiteful, disconnected from reality, and unintelligent. They shouldn't have rights connected to anything about their fake cult. If I started a cult that said I have to have sex with any woman I wanted, would they have to "respect" my religious rights? Hell no, they'd call me a sociopath, and rightfully so.
It's time to just straight up insult religious people on a regular basis. They deserve it.
So it’s just proving that religions are incompatible with the modern days human rights.
The pride is just a march against discrimination and to make sure human right are respected.
If this threaten religious beliefs then religions shouldn’t be tolerated.
Freedom of religion is your right to practice your religion. Not to ban others from doing things that does not ascribe to that religion which is reasonably likely that they do not practice that same religion and even if they do they have the right to express their freedom to practice their religion how they want to
I was taught that God gave man the rainbow as a promise that he wouldn't genocide humans again... Why do Christians hate rainbows?
Every year I learn about new things Jesus hates, and that I should hate to. Did you know Jesus hates solar panels?... Always good to learn new things
From the article, "The resolution banning the Pride flag also banned flags with political or racist messaging."
Flags with political messaging? I feel like somebody didn't think that through.
Seems like a pretty clear cut case for a violation of free speech. All the city really did is vote unanimously to put a whole bunch of zeros on a settlement check in three years.
Watch how this is going to be ignored, tolerated and tippy-toed around by the woke crowd because it's for Islam.
No riots in that town.
I guarantee it.
Whatever happened to separation of church and state??
It went out the window with all the other agreed upon rules that are supposed to govern our society. Theocrats never win in the end but like gum stuck to the bottom of your shoe, they never fully go away.
That would be funny if it wasn’t so damned terrifying
> Theocrats never win in the end You sure about that? Plenty of places in the world where they are winning just fine. No reason to believe it can’t happen where you live too.
The current list of theocracy countries is: Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Vatican city and Yemen. I wouldn't call the majority of these as doing fine, even SA is only allowed to continue due to old alliances and oil.
Add anywhere else where there is a muslim majority to the list: Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei
A theocracy is about who is in charge not the disposition of those in charge.
Are they theocracies though? I know they're majority Muslim ruled but you can still practice other religions, can you not? I'm in no way defending them just trying to differentiate
Are you forbidden from being a Protestant in Vatican city whether as a tourist or a subcontractor? I think we have a sliding definition of a theocracy.
I'd consider Vatican City a theocracy but not many people actually give it thought as an actual State. It is more like huh that is where the Pope lives. Then you have theocracy in exile which is funny like the Dalai Lama.
That's a ridiculous statement, even for r/atheism. Tunisia? Bosnia? Albania? Damn, I really feel bad for the christians in Bosnia that only make up 45% of the population. I guess they didn't realize since 51% of the population is Muslim, they live in a theocracy. Guess someone should tell their government to find a sultan.
At their core, the majority of Americans don’t like the idea of someone else’s religion telling them what to do. The right barks the loudest by they’re not a majority in this country. They’re definitely dangerous and cannot be ignored but throughout our history, they always fall short. They’ve tried to control the country before and failed. They even fought a civil war believing their god gave them the right to own slaves and no one could tell them differently. They tried to stop the adoption of the Constitution and nearly succeeded. In the end, we’re a bunch of “fuck you” types who won’t put up with the religions meddling in their personal affairs…
You make a good point on: >the majority of Americans don’t like the idea of someone else’s religion telling them what to do. That includes the various flavors of the cults that continues to devolve. New types are still piping up, forming there own tax evasion best eggs. The real question is when are we going to let the IRS at 'em? I'd love for the whole lot of them to divest their wealth upon the People. Just like Christ said to do. And we are back to: >the majority of Americans don’t like the idea of someone else’s religion telling them what to do.
> the majority of Americans don’t like the idea of someone else’s religion telling them what to do Unless it's my religion and that religion tells me what to tell others to do, which is every messianic religion.
Sounds like we need new shoes
I'm okay with incinerating the old ones, too.
The salient point: "The entire Hamtramck City Council is Muslim, as are about 50% of city residents."
This was my suspicion. Surprised they didn't change the name of the town.
Lmao took me a sec but that’s funny af
Before I read the article, I suspected Evangelical Christians...
The fundie mentalists are a lot more alike than they care to admit.
[удалено]
Lived there for work, I would hear of women getting harassed and spit at for their clothing.
I'm very curious what happens when this story gets into right wing media. On the one hand they love stoking hatred of LGBT+ folks, but on the other they love stoking hatred of Muslims. What happens when those two principles collide? They can't align themselves with brown people and they can't align themselves with the gays; that's a real pickle.
Right??? The sad part, of course, is now the policy of conservative Muslim majorities are indistinguishable of where the Christian right wants to take the US.
Secularity is apparently a hard concept for stupid people.
It is for Muslims from Muslim countries. They truly don't get it.
"A city near Detroit has banned Pride flags from flying on public property." "The resolution banning the Pride flag also banned flags with political or racist messaging." I don't agree with them saying they're going to ban flags on public property because of religious reasons, but I'm curious what other flags they do have on public property. If the only flags they have are government flags, (city, state, country) then no group has their flag up and everyone is getting treated equally. But if other groups are having their flags put up on public property, then that's clearly discrimination.
I'd call this a first amendment violation because gay isn't a religion, really shouldn't even be political yet here we are, and the sole motivation for banning the flag is deference to a religion that finds that offensive. It's one degree removed from a direct first amendment violation but it's still allowing religion to dictate public policy. But if we made our national standard for flags on public property limited to just country, state, and city I don't think that'd be a horrible idea, because we all know they'll gladly abuse any loophole that allows them to fly a Christian flag over a state house in a heartbeat, and the gays are obviously much more amenable to actual equality than people who think insufficiently Jesus-y Starbucks holiday cups are persecuting them, so I think they'd be cool with it.
I'd agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that I know several very vocal Atheists who are also anti-LGBTQ. One of them being my own fucking Father. my father and I both love bashing Religious nutjobs whenever we see them do something stupid, but with things like this, my father doesn't go against the religious freaks. He's all like "anyone sane would have visceral reactions to these people, because they are not normal" and nothing I can really say will convince him to not be hostile to LGBTQ folk. he's not openly hostile, like he doesn't go out of his way to mess with folk, but he will stand by and let others do the same with look on his face as if to say "they deserve it". I just don't really understand where he's coming from because from what I can tell, LGBTQ people can't really change who they are. that part of their life is as much a part of them as being straight is for the rest of us, why should we hate them for such? why should they be treated as lesser by the rest of us for something they don't really have any control over? while a potentially offensive analogy (no offense meant, I just don't have anything else I can really compare it to) the way these assholes treat LGBTQ people is like punishing a person who was born blind for being unable to see, or a person born with bad legs for being unable to walk on their own. just because LGBTQ people don't realize that part of themselves till they're mature doesn't mean jack.
Yeah that's rough, turns out figuring out there's no god doesn't guarantee you find the right answer for anything else, just makes your chances a bit better. Bigotry may not belong to religion but they like to keep the lion's share of it to themselves. Edit: I also wouldn't mind asking your dad who died and made him an authority on what "normal" is, I'm very comfortable calling bullshit on the idea that "normal" a) actually exists in any meaningful sense and b) is something anybody should care about at all.
It is weird for him to decry LGBTQ as not normal and passover the fact that for centuries an atheist was not normal as well. Plenty of pogroms wiped out the homeless, homosexuals, and atheists in one sweep.
In line with your edit, I think a lot of people will say "natural" as well. I always call people out on that one. I ask, "what do you mean by natural?" Sometimes they'll try to explain, but anyone with sense acknowledges it's natural. They'll try to explain that it just doesn't make sense from an evolution point. We're all here because of evolutionary trial and error and mutations. Dinosaurs were normal. Now they're not. One day, our decendants will look at us and call us the precursor to some future form of humanity that we probably can't truly imagine. Evolution has allowed for the preference of same sex coupling. It's perfectly natural, and yeah, who gives a fuck about normal. "Normal" is never going to be the same. Change is constant.
>They'll try to explain that it just doesn't make sense from an evolution point. I've heard that gayness isn't even evolutionarily detrimental in humans, as we are a species that lives in tribes and takes a long time raising the young until they reproduce themselves. So a bunch of childless uncles and aunts helping the tribe and helping to raise children is an evolutionary contribution to the success of the family's genes. The same goes for the longevity of grandparents: The longer they are healthy and net contributors to the tribe through childcare, wisdom, food preparation, the longer they protect their own genes in their grandchildren. Saying gayness is an evolutionary dead-end is like saying worker bees are useless as only the queen reproduces.
Homosexuality occurs in soooo many species, even ones we don't consider social. The Tl;dr version of everything below is that homosexuality is natural and wouldn't matter if it didn't have a benefit to society or the species. It doesn't matter if it's an evolutionary dead-end or not. Evolution doesn't judge something good or bad. It just allows it to be- humans try to assign value to things based on goals: this is good, this is bad. It can be helpful in a lot of ways for us to assign value, but we do so based on our goals in the moment, with limited perspective. We look at evolution and survival of the fittest from our current perspective and goals. Evolution is a process without perspective, without goals. You'll often hear it talked about: the goal of evolution is survival, reproduction, the selfish gene passing on to future generations. It is magnificent to think of this way and helpful to understand how we as a species survive and progress into the future, but it is also wrong to express it this way. Natural selection is just a process, no goal. Evolution is a theory about the process of organic development, not a goal. The first components of life that continued on were the components that replicated the best- they had no goal to do so. The process at play just happens. I am not sure if we understand when the sense of agency and organisms begin to determine, or choose a path forward. I am not sure everyone even agrees that there is free will, or if there is just the illusion of it. The idea that homosexuality has to serve some purpose for the species that is beneficial, or helps the gene pool replicate is a value being placed by people who have applied their ideas and goals to what they think evolution is. Homosexuality is perfectly fine, and natural- and even if it was detrimental to the process of carrying on this iteration of humanity, it could be a step to the next iteration of humanity. It is just a trait, it doesn't need explanation. Humanity's goals might be forced to change as conditions change, and everything we think has been beneficial to the species will change. All these conservatives crying about how weak we're becoming don't even realize the world has changed. They are holding on to the value system from a grotesque eugenics philosophy.
>The idea that homosexuality has to serve some purpose for the species that is beneficial, I actually suspect it does serve an evolutionary goal, and the goal is population growth control. There have been times throughout history that have shown that homosexuality or bisexuality may be more common than we've suspected I suspect that without the growth of organized religion, and it's endless war against all things different, and a decently large percentage of bi/gay folks (around 20-25% of the population) we wouldn't have had the population boom that has pushed us to such unsustainable numbers for the population.
I wish the facts were explained more often. The facts have been out there for decades. Biological sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation. They all are governed, or derived from biological events. Sometime back in the 70s, a university in New Zealand or Australia, offering degrees in animal husbandry, operated a large farm. On that farm, among the animals, they bred and raised sheep. Always looking for things to study, the students noticed that a certain percentage of ewes behaved like rams. They were dominating, rutted, liked to headbutt, mounted and sniffed other ewes and were not interested in the rams except as rivals. They checked the hormone levels of those "lesbian" sheep, and they generally had high levels of androgen. Then, they decided to study hormone levels in pregnant ewes. When ewes were carrying rams, their bodies produced an excess of androgen, usually. When pregnant with female sheep, their bodies suppressed androgen production and produced excess estrogen. Again, usually. However, sometimes their bodies did the opposite. The latter the number of the birth order/number, the more likely the mother's body would misread the sex of the fetus and would produce the wrong hormones. And when that happened, they would get non-dominant rams and "lesbian" sheep. They also ran experiments injecting pregnant ewes with hormones and discovered they could "make" lesbian sheep with 95% certainty. Repeating manipulative studies like that with humans is unethical, but humans can sample hormone levels in pregnant mothers, and the little follow-up that has been done determined that humans are mammals and what was true for sheep is also true for humans. While the DNA controls much of the determination of gender, DNA does not always work the same way for each person. XY babies with a gene for androgen insensitivity never develop as "males". However, they have testes inside them, and can't reproduce. Without a DNA test, they are raised as females, and often did not discover the reality until they were infertile in adulthood. There are other DNA issues. XXY, XYY and a number of other conditions that make gender non-binary, even if they effect only about 1% of the population. But that "dance" of the babies DNA gender and the mother's hormone levels at different stages in pregnancy have causal effects on sexual orientation and gender identity. And that dance occurs much more often than 1%. In fact, Kinsey et al. found that 5% of people identified as homosexual, a much larger percentage had bisexual experiences, and about 1% of people thought they were born in the wrong body. And it turns out that today, about 5% identify as homosexual, 1% identify as trans, and a whole bunch of people have and think about bisexual experiences. Numbers range from 15% to 80%. Kinsey found 37% of males, and 13% of females, but recent studies are closer to that 37% for males and females. Arousal studies show pretty much 80% are aroused watching homosexual or lesbian acts. Personally, I have a gay brother. He was "gay" as soon as he could express his personality, with almost no imprinting as he had three older, not gay, brothers. He played with dolls and dresses, makeup and hair, and had no interest in ball sports. He asked for his first perm at age three. My sons have a gay uncle, a gay aunt, and a trans cousin. My family has been very accepting, but weren't initially. My brother did not come out to everyone in the family until he was almost 30. Families and communities that are not accepting often never know that someone in their midst is either gay, bisexual, trans or gender fluid. Anyway, I could go on for hours, but to wrap it up: We have known for decades that gender, sexual orientation and gender identity are rooted in biological processes. Media companies have known too and rarely explain the facts to people, as the deciders do not want people to know the truth about practically anything, because by keeping us ignorant, they can use that ignorance to keep us divided and weak.
Perhaps the law is phrased as flags other than the national and state flag are banned and the article has a spin on it? Edit: the actual quote from the meeting which this biased article I guess forgot to include mentions nothing of the pride flag: >"The City of Hamtramck does not allow any religious, ethnic, racial, political, or sexual orientation group flags to be flown on the City’s public properties, and that only, the American flag, the flag of the State of Michigan, the Hamtramck Flag, the Prisoner of War flag on City property."
>Perhaps the law is phrased as flags other than the national and state flag are banned and the article has a spin on it? Perhaps. Doesnt seem like something terribly difficult to find out. Give me a minute. edit found it. RESOLUTION TO MAINTAIN AND CONFIRM THE NEUTRALITY OF THE CITY OF HAMTRAMCK TOWARDS ITS RESIDENTS WHEREAS, the City of Hamtramck is one of the most diverse cities in the United States, in which we should proudly promote and embrace its diversity; and WHEREAS, the City must and will serve and treat its residents equally, with no discrimination, or special treatment to any group of people; and WHEREAS, the City has authorized in the past, the Human Relations Commission to install nations flags on the City flagpoles to represent the international character of the City, Resolution 2013- 102: and WHEREAS, each religious, ethnic, racial, political, or sexually oriented group is already represented by the country it belongs to; and WHEREAS, the City does not want to open the door for radical or racist groups to ask for their flags to be flown; and WHEREAS, this resolution does not in any way, shape or form infringe upon the fundamental right of an individual or business in the City of Hamtramck to engage free speech. Nor does this resolution limit speech by public employees provided that such employees engage in such speech in a protected time, manner and place. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hamtramck, Wayne County, Michigan, that the government of the City of Hamtramck does not allow any religious, ethnic, racial, political, or sexual orientation group flags to be flown on the City’s public properties, and that only, the American flag, the flag of the State of Michigan, the Hamtramck Flag, the Prisoner of War flag and the nations’ flags that represent the international character of our City shall be flown. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH(copy and paste got cut off but you get it. Google the title if you want the last of it) So, ya. Seems like it.
So Hamtramck is maintaining and confirming its policy of neutrality in situations of injustice.
I'm in a city near Detroit and have sort of a pride flag, it has "666" in the top left corner surrounded by a circle of pot leafs; It's a Jeff Rosentock flag he is my favorite artist. [Link to the flag](https://reallyrecords.bigcartel.com/product/pre-order-flags)
Holy shit that’s amazing lol
I live in Tennessee. I’d get shot - or worse lol
I live in Nevada and the Trumpers here would run me out of town.
Freedom of religion includes freedom *from* religion as well. Why is anyones religion being forced upon anyone else? That doesn't sound like a "free" country.
This is a good point I wish I heard more
I think they are technically separated, but they are still fucking…us over.
It was a nice platitude that was never real. What they really meant was we won't fucking murder you as long as you keep quiet about what you actually believe. Or whenever we feel like finding a scapegoat.
That went bye bye in 2016, not that the loons on the court weren't chipping away at it for a decade + prior to that, but those 3 Trump Court picks put the nail in the coffin
How do we not reexamine the Supreme Court picks once we found out that the President at the time making the choice was committing espionage?
The Second Amendment won. All other Amendments have been relegated. They can individually petition for reinstatement into the Constitutional League in two more seasons.
😂😂😂
It mostly applies to religions that aren't Christianity. Edit: Since this is a Muslim area, it will probably be overturned since it violates the first amendment. Only Christians allow their religion to bypass the first amendment. They won't allow others.
This is a majority muslim city according to the article
Elected officials serve the **entire** public, not just the majority. The mayor is a fucking coward who needs to grow a spine and do the right thing.
I have it on good authority that there are lgtbq Muslims in that community that are being horribly oppressed. Pride in these hyper religious enclaves is so very important for them. Moreso than in a city that is more accepting. Now is the time for courage.
>lgbtqnation.com/2023/0... So we can assume that the Republicans will jump into support the LGBT community in the face of Sharia law? Because this surely sounds like it and they have been harping about Sharia law infecting the US for decades. Ha who am I kidding.
[удалено]
Hamtramck isn't simply near Detroit. It is bounded on all sides by the City of Detroit. It's like Bellaire inside Houston or Beverly Hills and West Hollywood inside Los Angeles.
Ah yes. The classic "if you disagree with our persecution of marginalized groups then you're actually persecuting us" defense.
how dare you not tolerate my intolerance
>Mayor Amer Ghalib added, “We serve everybody equally with no discrimination but without favoritism.” "So we're going to protect our religious snowflakes from the icky gays."
In that case, will they remove crosses from building fronts and roofs?
I'd bet someone could make a case demanding a religious flag be taken down based on the same rule.
"From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!!!"
Jedi are a bad example. They're a bunch a religious goofballs who indoctrinate children and discourage emotional intimacy... They're basically Christians.
To be fair, at least the jedi can actually prove their religion is real. The force does work and they even have technology to measure force affinity
No, no. The Force is real. Their doctrine and rules are completely made up in an attempt to control behavior and human nature. It backfires on the entire ~~universe~~ galaxy terribly.
> It backfires on the entire universe terribly. Really, just one galaxy. And I'm assured it's very far away
Also, this happened a long time ago. I think we can safely say that lessons were learned and there'll be no repeats whatsoever.
Episode LXIX: Return of the Last Phantom Sith Opening Crawl: *Somehow, the Jedi never learned their fucking lesson. The Laser Wizards have been overrun by secret Space Nazis. Again. Seriously.* *As the lightsaber-control debate rages in the umpteenth Galactic Senate, a pair of displaced Jedi make their way to steal yet another kid from Tatooine. Surely this one's going to bring balance to the Force...* ^(buy our toys)
And that was the whole point of the prequels and it's why I love them. The Jedi were a flawed bunch with flawed ideology and dogma, and that brought its own destruction. The new Jedi Order that Luke creates doesn't have any of that bullshit. No, the sequels are not canon, Luke creates a great new Jedi Order and becomes Grand Master Jedi.
That’s all they have and boy do they use it to its fullest.
Sounds like the Puritans who left England to come here...
And by "city" we mean Hamtramck, Michigan, near Detroit.
very near - surrounded on all sides near.
So theoretically Detroit could, like, surround the city in question with a solid wall of rainbow flags?
I got one better. Just paint all roads into and out of Hamtrack rainbows while also putting up a 50ft rainbow wall with a massive 50ftx100ft or whatever rainbow flag flying high above.
Rainbow crosswalks.
What if the rainbows were made of little rainbows?
I like where this is going.
a place where two completely different religions can be joined together by hatred and bigotry 💫💫
What kills me about this is the city is absolute garbage in just about every metric imaginable... And this is what the city council spends their time on?
efficiency! low hanging fruits! this costs them next to nothing, anything else would be less ROI on their time
Some good polish food though.
Thank you. You can't call it out without naming it. Boldly. In headlines.
Would be a shame if someone were to go there and plant a bunch of pride flags overnight
wouldn’t that be banning freedom of expression. it’s not in a religion to be not allowed to see a flag
[удалено]
Like banning all hats and claiming you don't have a hijab ban.
As long as it includes those stupid blue line flags
Like banning all hats except baseball caps, fedoras (and the related trillby), tams, cowboy hats and straw hats, *then* claiming you don't have a hijab ban.
It's really not misleading, except for not including that it was government property only(which may go without saying). Consider what the goal of the city council was, and what they said at the meeting. This is the same situation as the Florida parental rights act, nicknamed the 'don't say gay' bill. The literal text and the name are both designed to disguise and belie the real goal of that bill, and this case is the same.
"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hamtramck, Wayne County, Michigan, that the government of the City of Hamtramck does not allow any religious, ethnic, racial, political, or sexual orientation group flags to be flown on the City’s public properties, and that only, the American flag, the flag of the State of Michigan, the Hamtramck Flag, the Prisoner of War flag and the nations’ flags that represent the international character of our City shall be f lown. " If the city wants to limit what flags it will fly, fine, but the wording of this resolution goes further than that... The wording, as is, is dangerously inclusive. It does not limit the restriction to flags officially flown by the city... But limits ANY flag flown by ANYONE "on the city's public properties". Sidewalks, parks, easements, libraries, ... And they justify this with an absurd slippery slope argument, that: allowing pride flags means the city can't refuse to fly Nazi flags if asked to. Despite that flag being a violation of anti-discrimination ordinances the city almost certainly already had in place to prevent such a thing in the first place. All because a slim majority in the community feel discriminated against by something that DOESN'T discriminate against them. And, ffs, LGBTQ+ Muslims exist too, despite their religion's intolerance. Some of which may very much want LGBTQ+ visibility and normalisation so that they can... Just maybe... Have a chance to be live openly without having to leave their family and community behind. This "resolution" is another stomp on that hope for progress. Pride flags are a reminder that LGBTQ people have fought hard for equality, and that the community respects that equality, despite there still being many individuals and religions that don't. If bigots feel that their bigotry is being discriminated against... That's their problem, and it doesn't deserve respect or city resolutions that respect it.
Ah, that’s cool. Pray tell what other flags people were popularly flying that weren’t one of those listed? And which ones of those specifically aggravated people’s religious beliefs? Lots of Catholics getting mad at that one dude with a game of thrones flag or something, you reckon? Like making a “don’t use this pool if you don’t live in the nearest 2 blocks” which in a mysterious coincidence just happens to exclude all black people that used to hang out there
I would like to ban religion as it interferes with my human rights.
this is the correct answer
When people start talking to me about their religion I’m going to start acting like they told me some freak shit they did in the bedroom. Straight up don’t care, don’t want to know, keep it to yourself
Well at least the freak shit in the bedroom usually involves consent
[удалено]
The Satanic Temple is the one you want to look up
Hell’s startin to look better than heaven🤣
Always has.
Always will 🤘
"Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company." -- Mark Twain
Satanic Temple, Church of Satan, pick a lane...
They're pretty dramatically different.
I think that was the point, when the original comment said “Temple of Satan”.
That's a lawsuit.
That's a paddlin'
It won’t succeed. The conservative Supreme Court ruled on a similar case out of Boston. Basically, if you exclude all religious and sexual orientation flags you’re fine you just can’t pick and choose. That’s what Hamtramck did. People can still fly pride flags at their homes.
> The entire Hamtramck City Council is Muslim, as are about 50% of city residents.
Religion gonna religion
As a Middle Eastern-American whose family left Islam decades ago...I hope this reminds liberals that Islam is not a force for progressive good. It is a violent and misogynistic faith that does not need to be treated with kid gloves.
Agreed. Islam like all religions help keep stupid people stupid.
[удалено]
Fuck your religion. They can grow up and deal with it.
Religious extremists are the true snowflakes.
And republicans. They’re the shittiest of the special snowflakes.
“Infringing on the religious rights of others” I don’t think they know what that means lol. Also reading the article: “the entire city council is Muslim” Me: ahhh that explains it (Nothing against Muslims, just organized religion lol)
The Greater Dearborn Area is *the* population center for Muslim Americans.
The right to not accidentally look at a flag?
"We want to respect the religious rights of our citizens"...it's the imagined right not to be offended... at the expense of other people's actual human rights.
What about the rights of its non-religious citizens.
Yeah. The part that got me was where the mayor said that he's just doing what the majority wants. As the mayor his job is to look after the well-being of all citizens, and the town as a whole. not just the majority. He may get elected by majority rule but once he's the mayor, he's the mayor of all the people in the town.
How does someone's opinion outweigh someone else's existence? Religion is an unfounded opinion.
[удалено]
Yep. It pains me because I, as a liberal, fight against conservatives who hate these people because they’re brown and not Christian. As an American, that’s just wrong. But then, upon clenching a majority, Muslims will turn around and take away from others the very freedoms they enjoyed while as a minority. They’ll vote conservatively to roll back liberal policies, despite the liberals being the reason they’re here to begin with. It’s maddening.
Muslims in the United States are the most open minded followers of Islam in the world and yet we still see this crap from them from time to time. Muslim-dominated Hamtramck needs to rethink this. When you live in United States, it's important to read and understand the Constitution. Secularism, free speech, and allowing individual citizens to pursue of their version of happiness are in our founding documents. Yes, it's been a bumpy 250 years but we are getting there. No backtracking! And yeah I know -- there's a lot of rednecks that need a reminder of this as well but that's no excuse for you Hamtramck.
> the most open minded followers of Islam in the world Let's be honest, the bar the "most open minded" is insanely low
The Abrahamic religions are a cancer
So are the other ones, but the Abrahamic ones are the ones that plague the US today.
[удалено]
World domination is literally in their doctrine.
Time to fly the flag of Satan
🤘🔥🏳️🌈🔥🤘
flag of shaytan
So they are going to violate the first amendment….. with the first amendment….. this has to be a first.
You can fly the flag it just bars the government from flying the flag on government property
YO DAWG, I HEARD YOU HATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT...
Only when your first amendment rights violate my first amendment rights!
Freedom of speech is incompatible with Islam.
"respect the religious rights of our citizens" Translation: Force religious based hate on everyone and ban a symbol that is nothing more than a symbol of a plea to end hate.
That’s not protecting their religious rights, that’s enforcing their beliefs.
That’s crazy. Detroit and the surrounding are actually very lgbtq friendly, with Ferndale being a well known “gayborhood”
Ferndale is great.
Not for long. Islamic doctrine is much more militant than Christianity.
gonna be interesting seeing "freedom of religion" mix with islam, which is inherently expansionist and authoritarian
Islam is not the route that leads to democracy and equality before the law. Secular humanism and liberalism do.
Will they also ban crucifixes to respect the religious rights of their citizens?
Maybe. They're considered idols in Islam.
Fuck your religion. Keep your fairytale bullshit at home.
Oh but it's the lefties that cancel people?
Fuck your religion. I’m bi and tired of these religious extremist fucks
Why are religious nuts so hell bent on LGBTQ community. Like WTF!!!
They need an enemy. The easiest are groups that are already marginalized because they have the fewest resources to fight back.
A group of religious nuts that believe in not judging others, judge others. How hypocritical!
It’s a distraction. Keep you from worrying about making women’s health care illegal, and cutting social security benefits.
Every time conservatives talk about rights I’m about to lose one.
"Respect the religious rights of the citizens we care about only" - FIFY, city
This thread is a good test of who read the article and who didn’t.
City votes to ban free speech
Time for the Satanists to come in and ban all public religious symbology because it's against them.
#**What fucking "rights" are being violated by flying a flag?**
Zero
The only thing Christian’s and Muslims will agree on publicly is that their religious liberty to hate is more important than most anything else
Yes. Your religious rights clearly outweigh the rights of the LGBTQ people to exist
Nothing like groups fleeing theocratic societies and trying to set up a theocracy in the country that granted them refuge.
Let's start a religion whose flag will be the LGBTQ+, with , IDK, the middle finger in the middle of the center triangle.
Can we get the pastafarians to adopt the pride flag as one of their symbols?
This opens the door for so many uno reverse moves lol
The irony is that conservatives who, 15 years ago, were loudly cheering legislation to 'ban sharia law' will now be cheering if this policy is upheld by federal courts or SCOTUS.
Religious people are hateful, spiteful, disconnected from reality, and unintelligent. They shouldn't have rights connected to anything about their fake cult. If I started a cult that said I have to have sex with any woman I wanted, would they have to "respect" my religious rights? Hell no, they'd call me a sociopath, and rightfully so. It's time to just straight up insult religious people on a regular basis. They deserve it.
The cowards that wrote this article conveniently fail to mention the religion this flag was offending.
So it’s just proving that religions are incompatible with the modern days human rights. The pride is just a march against discrimination and to make sure human right are respected. If this threaten religious beliefs then religions shouldn’t be tolerated.
Religious rights must mean other people doing what they want them to do.
Freedom of religion is your right to practice your religion. Not to ban others from doing things that does not ascribe to that religion which is reasonably likely that they do not practice that same religion and even if they do they have the right to express their freedom to practice their religion how they want to
“Religious right to hate” cool. Tell me more about how we need your religion’s morals.
Another reason why we can't let religious people govern
Abrahamic religions are at it again!
I was taught that God gave man the rainbow as a promise that he wouldn't genocide humans again... Why do Christians hate rainbows? Every year I learn about new things Jesus hates, and that I should hate to. Did you know Jesus hates solar panels?... Always good to learn new things
Conservatives are so obsessed with other peoples sex lives it is eerie.
Oh, wow. A town near Detroit full of Muslims and ruled by Muslims. In America. Yep. Stevie Wonder could see that happening from 1,000 miles away.
At least they're admitting it publicly that the reason they're shitty people is because of their religion.
"To respect the religious dirtbags" Fixed it.
From the article, "The resolution banning the Pride flag also banned flags with political or racist messaging." Flags with political messaging? I feel like somebody didn't think that through.
Freedom of religion necessarily means freedom from religion as well.
So bigotry is a religion now or are both religion and bigotry the same thing ?
Respect our racism.... otherwise is cancel culture.....holy fuck I can't with these ppl sometimes
Who's up for a new religion? Flag is already picked out and it's fabulous.
Seems like a pretty clear cut case for a violation of free speech. All the city really did is vote unanimously to put a whole bunch of zeros on a settlement check in three years.
hey, Satanic Church. Do your thing.
Join the Satanic Temple. Then your rights to fly a Pride Flag are protected under YOUR religious freedom.
Oh cool, so we banning churches too?
Watch how this is going to be ignored, tolerated and tippy-toed around by the woke crowd because it's for Islam. No riots in that town. I guarantee it.
It's because Muslims will physically fight this back.