A city judge ruled on Monday that the Muslim-majority city of Hamtramck, Michigan didnt violate the constitution when it voted in June 2023 to ban Pride flags on public flagpoles.U.S. District Judge David Lawson dismissed a lawsuit that accused the city of violating free speech by banning the flags. The lawsuit argued that the city councils policy didnt maintain neutrality because it allowed certain flags like the U.S. and state flags, prisoner-of-war flags and flags that represent the international character of residents while banning other types of flags like political, religious, and racial flags. Related 200-foot rainbow banner unfurled at capitol as GOP bans Pride flags on government land Hamtramcks refusal to display the Gay Pride flag did not violate the Constitution, Judge Lawson wrote in his decision, according to Watermark Online. But even though the policy banned all other kinds of flags, the ban was put in place solely due to opposition to the Pride flag.The entire Hamtramck City Council is Muslim, as are about 50% of city residents. Councilmembers argued that while LGBTQ+ people are welcome in the city, flying the Pride flag would disrespect the religious freedom of others. Never Miss a Beat Subscribe to our newsletter to stay ahead of the latest LGBTQ+ political news and insights. Subscribe to our Newsletter today We want to respect the religious rights of our citizens, said Councilman Nayeem Choudhury during the June 2023 debate over the policy. [LGBTQ+ people] are welcome [but] why do you have to have the flag shown on government property to be represented? Youre already represented. We already know who you are By making this [about] bigotry its making it like you want to hate us.The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Russ Gordon and Cathy Stackpoole, who were fired from the citys Human Relations Commission after they flew Pride flags on public property in defiance of the councils new policy. Their suit claimed the law banning the Pride flag violated the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitutions 14th Amendment. The suit further argued that the plaintiffs didnt violate the policy because an unconstitutional resolution is itself a violation of law, and a citizen who violates an unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful, resolution cannot be violating the law.Rather, the lawsuit alleged that the councilmembers who voted in favor of the policy violated the law by instating the unconstitutional policy.Hamtramck Mayor Amer Ghalib told The Detroit Free Press that the lawsuit is another unnecessary distraction by the former power structure that doesnt like to see the city moving forward.The neutrality resolution is legal and constitutional, Ghalib said. The city doesnt discriminate, or give any preferential treatment to any group. The taxpayer government buildings or spaces belong to everyone and cannot be used by a specific group to promote a special interest groups agenda. The city isnt being selective on which flag it can fly, like it was the case with Shurtleff v. Boston, in which the Supreme Court ruled against the citys selective enforcement. This is different: The city decided to keep government properties neutral, and no group would be allowed to fly any kind of flags other than whats specified in the resolution.Subscribe to theLGBTQ Nation newsletterand be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.