Mayor fined for failing to observe state sanctioned religious festival

[Arctish]

If no one objects to it

This is where we disagree. I am not okay with a town raising the Confederate flag over a government building, no matter what. You might be, but I am not.

Private concerns are free to do so. I'll keep my opinions to myself. But not the government. Then I won't.
Tom

It sounds like you object, and that's why you want change in the places where it happens.

I also want things I find objectionable to change, but I don't want governments or officials to be capricious about it - I want them to follow official channels and make official changes, with the support of the communities those governments and officials govern. I don't just want some town council member making random changes based on his/her own random thoughts and feelings.

If the mayor of Emo believed there were objections to flying that particular flag among townspeople who hadn't seen or responded to the petition, he should have sought more public input to confirm his suspicions. If his suspicions proved to be well founded, then he could have made the case that flying the Pride flag was divisive and not in the public interest. If he was shown to be wrong, then the town should have followed precedent and approved the petition as usual.

If the mayor believes that flying the flags of private concerns is inappropriate for a governmental body, he should lead the effort to change the local laws/ordinances so that no such flags will be flown by the town, regardless of what those flags represent. That would not be discriminatory, so no worries about the Human Rights Tribunal getting involved. And if we lived in Emo, he'd have your support and mine.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The fascist onslaught continues;

Ontario Mayor Harold McQuaker, who refused to pay damages ordered against him by a human rights tribunal, has had the funds garnished from his bank account – despite his protest.
Borderland Pride posted to its Facebook group to celebrate that they garnished the mayor’s bank account.“Sure, sex is great, but have you ever garnished your mayor’s bank account after he publicly refused to comply with a Tribunal’s order to pay damages?” the group said In response to a GiveSendGo fundraiser, claiming that the mayor had his account garnished.

News

How is this "continues"? You don't pay what the court orders you to pay, garnishment is likely. It makes him look bad but it's part of the same action, not an additional action.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

...As for showing there's faith involved in the situation, do you think saying "there’s no flags being flown for the straight people” does in point of fact discriminate against gay people? Do you think saying "there’s no flags being flown for the straight people” does in point of fact demean and disparage "the LGTBTQ2S+ community"? Do you think L and G and T and the rest even are in point of fact one single community that's distinct from the community at large?

The tribunal believed those things with no factual basis for believing them. ... McQuaker treated singling out gays for special celebration the same as singling out straights for special celebration, and the tribunal believed gays being treated the same as straights was unfair to gays. They believed it on faith.

The status quo doesn't need to be told it's ok to be that way. And there's no celebration involved in flying a flag.

Uh huh.

Northwestern Ontario community fined for refusing to celebrate Pride Month

An Ontario town and its mayor have been fined a total of $15,000 for refusing to celebrate Pride Month.

winnipeg.ctvnews.ca

Don't tell me it's not a celebration. Tell Canadian Television.

Reporters routinely make mountains out of molehills. It's how you get viewers. This is simply another example of it and means no more than the other 999,999 times they have done so.

It's just a "you're welcome".

Do you believe for a second that if Emo had counteroffered to just put up a sign saying "People of all races, creeds and sexual orientations are welcome here.", the "Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario" would have considered that an acceptable compromise?

Given what we have seen of this I think the tribunal is right and this was intentionally discriminatory.

And in refusing to fly the flag the mayor is saying "you are not welcome."

I.e.,

He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who is not doing the Father's work of gathering up the flock may as well be scattering the flock. -- Matthew 12:30​

That's a very religious attitude for the HRTO and Borderland Pride to adopt. Nietzsche had a choice comment on that whole sentiment.

If someone dared to say now: "he who is not with me is against me", he would immediately have everyone against him. This thought does honor to our times.​

Our culture's taste for freethinking seems to have deteriorated since then.

I do agree that that quote doesn't belong but in this case I think "not with me" is not being welcoming to gays--it truly is being against them. I see no need to roll out the welcome mat, but to roll the welcome mat back up is a hostile act.