Webster pride flag removal remains divisive

Woodland Silkscreen & Embroidery, a small business in Webster, recently received hundreds of negative Yelp reviews accusing the store owner, Laurie Read, of bigotry. The influx of negative reviews came after the Webster Town Board’s 3-2 decision to remove a pride flag from town property.

Read had openly supported that decision.

“You’re opening Pandora’s box if you want everybody’s flag flown,” she says.

On June 1, the pride flag was raised at town hall for the first time in Webster’s history to mark the beginning of Pride Month. Four days later, it no longer flew over the building.

The decision to take down the flag has divided the community. Some believe only the state and American flags should be flown on government buildings, while others think removing the flag during Pride Month is discriminatory.

At a June 4 Webster Town Board meeting, Republican Councilman John Cahill introduced a resolution to allow only the American and New York flags to be displayed on town property. It passed in a 3-2 vote. Cahill and supporters of his resolution, Republican Councilwoman Jennifer Wright and Democratic Councilman Garrett Wagner, did not respond to a Beacon request for comment.

Democratic Town Supervisor Alex Scialdone, who made the initial decision to raise the flag, says neither he nor Democratic Deputy Supervisor Nick Hunter was aware that the motion would be introduced. Copies of the resolution had been prepared even though it wasn’t on the agenda.

“I was not aware that this was going to happen. The community was not aware. They brought it forth right at the end of the meeting to make it happen,” says Scialdone.

During the meeting, Scialdone informed other board members that the proposed resolution would also affect any flags flown at Challenger Miracle Field, near the town hall. No amendment was made before voting began.

Hunter describes the moments after the motion was introduced as chaos. It was his understanding that the resolution would require a public forum, and he was surprised that it was approved at the same meeting.

“I think sloppy policy was brought up,” Hunter says.

Although the motion led to the pride flag being removed, it did not specifically mention banning the flag. Some supporters of the decision argue that the motion was made to ensure neutrality. 

Read says that her support of Cahill’s resolution was not due to any anti-LGBTQ bias, but because she believes only the American flag should be displayed at town hall.

“You either have to put all flags up for all groups … or you put no flags up,” she says. 

Read believes the LGBTQ community misunderstood her intentions and is overreacting by writing negative reviews for her store.  

Others, like Andrew Moran, president of Rochester Rainbow Union, an LGBTQ organization, are not convinced that the decision was a push for neutrality, citing the fact that the Ukrainian flag had been displayed on town property in the past without pushback.

“It’s telling that only when it’s the Pride flag that comes up is when they decided they need to take down all flags,” Moran says.

Scialdone also believes the decision was biased and explains that he was partly inspired to raise the pride flag by the previous display of the Ukrainian flag. He and Hunter continue to stand by the initial decision, alongside other members of the Webster community.

On June 13, dozens of people from both Webster and the Greater Rochester area gathered outside of town hall with rainbow flags and signs to protest the new policy. 

The protest organizer, who declined to provide her full name, is owner of the @websterpride Instagram account. She says she is unhappy with how quickly the decision was voted on and believes most community members would like the flag to be presented.

“I would just say to listen to the voices of the people in the community,” she says.

Many Webster residents showed up to the June 18 town board meeting to share mixed opinions. As of now, the new policy remains.

 Aiko Levick, a student at Rochester Institute of Technology, is a member of the Oasis Project’s third cohort.

The Beacon welcomes comments and letters from readers who adhere to our comment policy including use of their full, real name. See “Leave a Reply” below to discuss on this post. Comments of a general nature may be submitted to the Letters page by emailing [email protected].