As the press rushes in to defend LGBT𝜋 issues regarding a Pride Flag ban, it runs up against previous default support for Muslims.

This year, Pride Month has not been the overwhelming success the press in this country anticipated. The rainbow tidal wave has been beaten back in a number of ways as public sentiment towards the incessant LGBT𝜋 agenda has been turning against the surge. Fewer companies this year adopted rainbow logos, and the Bud Light and Target stores backlashes are either an extension of this or possibly the cause of corporate hesitancy.  A recent Gallup poll surprisingly showed growth in opposition to trans athletes, despite the press persistently pushing that agenda.

There has been community resistance as well. A recent protest in Maryland had parents lobbying against an LGBT𝜋 curriculum in schools, but we saw very little media coverage there because it was a largely Muslim community. Now in a similar fashion, a city in Michigan is coming under scrutiny for reportedly banning Pride Flags on city property, and the challenges this poses for the press are leading to contortions in coverage.

At issue is that in Hamtramck, Michigan, the city council voted on a new resolution regarding the display of the flags on public property, but as CNN ran to Michigan to report on the supposed intolerance, there were problems found. The first is with the legislation specifically. Despite the headline blaring how the city “Votes to Permanently Ban Pride Flags,” reporters Eli Masket and Michelle Watson have to give more clarifying text.

As communities across the United States celebrate June as Pride Month, a city near Detroit, Michigan, has voted to permanently ban the display of Pride flags on public property. Hamtramck’s city council members voted unanimously Tuesday to approve the controversial resolution, which restricts the city from flying any “religious, ethnic, racial, political, or sexual orientation group flags” on public grounds, according to meeting minutes.

Not just Pride flags, but all non-national socio-political banners are not permitted. This means only the United States flag, or those from other nations representing the residents of this deeply diverse community, are permitted to be displayed. There is another curiosity found in reading through their report. Somehow in this story of governance and a controversial social issue, we never see a single reference to a political party. Be assured, if Republicans could be branded as hateful and bigoted, that would be included in the lead.

So why the hesitancy here? Hamtramck is a community celebrated as the first for having its city government operated entirely by elected Muslims. It was a reality praised when the elections came in, showing this historic result. But now there is conflict to be found, as people are trying to reconcile their positions. As The Guardian explained, there is “Liberal Dismay As Muslim-Led US City Bans Pride Flags.”

The past years of full-throated support for Muslims means that, for one, the journalists have to hedge on their claims of intolerance and transphobia. If they come out too vociferously in favor of the LGBT𝜋 community, they run the risk of becoming “Islamophobic.” (Sorry, CNN, your rules, and such.) As a result, the reporters had to find others to deliver the condemnation by proxy. Quotes were provided by locals who spoke out against this measure, effectively shielding CNN from intolerance.

During a city council meeting, one resident announced, “For Hamtramck to attempt to equate the LGBTQ Pride flag with hate symbols, when it is a symbol of progress and love, is now a local attack on our community.” In an email sent to the city, another resident wrote, “Does Hamtramck wish to participate in this trend of alienating, threatening, and punishing members of the LGBTQ+ community?” 

At The Guardian, they turned to the former mayor of the town for comment. Karen Majewski stated, “We supported you when you were threatened, and now our rights are threatened, and you’re the one doing the threatening.” Another citizen who is a member of an anti-trans organization was quoted saying this ruling is “an erasure of the queer community and an attempt to shove queer people back in the closet.”

The melodramatics are heavy with this crowd. That they call it an attack, a threat, a punishment, or an erasure of a community to simply forbid a flag be hung on public property is rather hyperbolic. One resident was shown hanging the flag at their private business in defiance — which is perfectly acceptable. This only concerns public areas. No one is under threat or is being erased.

The comedy in all of this is that after years of demanding comportment from others under threat of being labeled in negative ways, the press is running up against the struggle to properly condemn an action when it is enforced by a protected class. They told us that being critical of Muslims was intolerance, and now their own standard leads to a reporting paradox.