Liberal city leaders in Boise and Salt Lake City just pulled a sneaky legal maneuver to fly LGBT Pride flags over government buildings despite state laws explicitly prohibiting them – proving once again that when the left doesn’t like a law, they’ll just find a way around it.
At a Glance
- Boise and Salt Lake City councils designated LGBT pride flags as “official city symbols” to circumvent new state laws restricting flags on government buildings
- Idaho and Utah had passed laws allowing only American, state, and military flags on government property
- Idaho’s Attorney General has warned Boise’s mayor about potential denial of state funds for not complying with the flag ban
- Opponents argue the Pride flag is divisive and doesn’t represent the majority of citizens
- Supporters claim removing the flag would send a negative message about inclusivity
When Laws Are Just Suggestions
If you’ve ever wondered why conservatives get so frustrated with progressive politicians, look no further than what’s happening in Idaho and Utah. Both states recently passed sensible laws restricting which flags can fly on government property – basically limiting it to official government flags like Old Glory, state banners, and military flags. Pretty reasonable, right? But apparently following the law is just too difficult for the liberal mayors of Boise and Salt Lake City, who decided to deploy a creative workaround: simply declare the Pride flag an “official city flag” and – presto! – problem solved.
This is the same playbook the left always uses. When they can’t win through the legislative process, they find administrative loopholes to impose their agenda anyway. Idaho and Utah lawmakers passed these flag laws to ensure government buildings remain politically neutral spaces – a concept that seems entirely reasonable unless you’re determined to use government property as a billboard for your preferred social causes. But to progressive city officials, state laws are merely inconvenient obstacles to be navigated around.
Selective “Inclusion” on the Taxpayer’s Dime
Let’s be clear about what’s happening here: progressive city councils are using public buildings to promote specific ideological messages while claiming it’s all about “inclusion.” But as one dissenting voice pointed out, many citizens don’t feel represented by these displays. Melodie Ostman, who opposed Boise’s resolution, hit the nail on the head when addressing the city council about the Pride flag.
“It’s about government spaces trying to remain neutral and supporting and being a voice for everyone, not just a select few.” – Melodie Ostman.
This isn’t about denying anyone rights or respect – it’s about whether government buildings should be used to promote particular social or political viewpoints. If we’re going to start declaring flags for various causes as “official city symbols,” where does it end? Will we see official city flags for every political movement, religious belief, or social cause? The American flag is supposed to represent all of us. Adding more flags by definition makes the space less neutral and more divisive.
Legal Showdowns Brewing
Idaho’s Republican Attorney General isn’t taking this lying down. He’s already warned Boise’s Mayor Lauren McLean that there could be financial consequences for the city’s defiance, including denial of state funds. Utah’s law imposes a $500 daily fine on violations. But these progressive mayors seem more than willing to spend taxpayer dollars fighting these battles – all while claiming they’re not trying to be divisive.
“My sincere intent is not to provoke or cause division. My intent is to represent our city’s values and honor our dear diverse residents who make up this beautiful city and the legacy of pain and progress that they have endured.” – Mendenhall.
If Mayor Mendenhall’s intent truly isn’t to “provoke or cause division,” she might consider respecting the laws enacted by the duly elected state legislature. Instead, Salt Lake City came up with an equally absurd workaround by adding the city symbol (a sego lily) to the Pride, transgender, and Juneteenth flags to qualify them as “city flags.” It’s the governmental equivalent of crossing your fingers behind your back while making a promise – technically clever but fundamentally dishonest.
Constitutional Crisis in the Making
What we’re witnessing is a smaller-scale version of the constitutional crises that happen when cities decide to defy state laws they don’t like – whether on immigration, drug enforcement, or now, flag displays. Our system of government depends on respecting the hierarchy of laws, not creating clever workarounds whenever we disagree with them. If Boise and Salt Lake City residents wanted to change the flag laws, the proper approach would be to elect different state legislators – not have city officials play legal games to undermine state authority.
“This law is about keeping government spaces neutral and welcoming to all. Salt Lake City should focus on real issues, not political theatrics.” – Republican House Speaker Mike Schultz.
Speaker Schultz has it exactly right. These progressive mayors are engaging in political theatrics rather than addressing real issues facing their cities. And in doing so, they’re teaching citizens a dangerous lesson: if you don’t like a law, just find a creative way to ignore it. That’s not how a constitutional republic functions. It’s how it falls apart.
