>the words on this print out sufficiently state all are welcome

If all are welcome why did Hanover seek the ADF's review of policies regarding trans students? Hanover refused to adopt policies that allow a trans student to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity. And then they go and seek the opinion of ADF which has goals of "ensuring the law respects God created order for marriage, the family, and human sexuality.”

Are the words enough? No. Not when Hanover is seeking input from a group that doesn't see trans rights as human rights. Not when Hanover's school board has to individually approve which bathroom a trans student can or cannot use.

Edit: I did notice in your original comment you mentioned how you didn't feel the need to be in "battle mode" all the time. I don't know you or your political ideology, but trans people are continually being targeted by Republicans and the alt-right every day.

I understand idealogically what you're saying. However , the words Make America Great Again are actually not fine on their own at all. The words All Are Welcome obviously are fine on their own, as you said, because they dont not recklessly harken to the past.

I think a better comparison would be to say it's like banning the color red because it's also the color of blood/gore. Politicians are actively making a battle out of rainbow 🌈 coloring. Which is so silly and a waste of time because a rainbow also happens to be a useful set of colors in a school ground, whether paired with welcoming words or not.😂

There are no sides, there is just a bunch of bigots who wish they lived in the bronze age and then there is the rest of us who live in a society.

Accepting people’s sexual preferences is not picking a side. It’s the neutral, expected way to be. Anything outside of that is just antiquated bigotry that will fade into the abyss in the next few decades.

This is the issue- this isn’t sides on an ideological discussion (no matter how bad folks on the right want to present it as such), the symbol is about recognizing people’s right to be treated as people, plain and simple.

Treating a rainbow flag like it’s representing some kind of special interest group, or even a symbols of “wokeness” is a discursive tactic that makes it seem like a political discussion but it’s really not- its very simply a message that a large spectrum (hence the rainbow) of sexual and gender identities that have a history of discrimination against them are accepted unilaterally and equally as human beings. This shouldn’t even be politicized at this point, let alone seen as a “battle” statement.

I know you're getting a lot of replies but I hope you have time to read this.

The reason that it's not a battle flag is because it's inherently not two-sided. If the sides were, "Nobody can be gay" and "Everybody has to be gay", you would have a valid point. However, that's not the case.

Right now the conflict is one side saying, "Nobody can be gay" but the opposition is just saying "It's okay to be gay and you should expect the same respect the rest of society gets by default".

If you're not gay that's fine. Nobody is excluding straight people from anything. People are just asking to be able to show support to a group that's currently and historically been given a hard time just for existing.

To be clear, "which side" is a choice between "I think people deserve to be treated with respect" vs. "I'm a bigot". This is a "I like pancakes" and "so you hate waffles?" situation.