All Choices Have Consequences? Reflections on Hamtramck, Shared Values, and Learning to Live Together

Someone recently sent me a short video from Canadian lawyer and commentator Phillip Millar’s Instagram account. The video highlighted the decision of Hamtramck, Michigan’s all-Muslim city council to prohibit Pride flags from being flown on city-owned flagpoles.

The facts themselves are relatively straightforward. In 2023, Hamtramck adopted a policy limiting flags displayed on city property to official government flags and certain national flags representing residents’ countries of origin. Supporters argued that government should remain neutral and avoid endorsing political, religious, or social movements. Critics pointed out that Pride flags had previously been flown at city hall and argued that, despite its broader wording, Pride flags were the primary target and that the decision diminished the sense of belonging experienced by LGBTQ+ residents.

It is important to note what the policy does and does not do. It does not prohibit Pride flags—or any other flags—from being displayed on private homes, businesses, churches, community organizations, or other private property. Residents and organizations remain free to fly Pride flags, religious flags, national flags, or any other symbols on their own property. The policy applies only to flags displayed on city-owned flagpoles.

What interested me even more was Phillip Millar’s accompanying message. He wrote:

“A society only survives if the people living in it believe in the same fundamental values. Tolerance is important. But tolerance without limits is not tolerance at all. If you welcome people who reject the very principles your society is built on, eventually those principles disappear. Immigration can strengthen a country. But only if the people coming in are willing to embrace the values that made that country worth coming to in the first place.”

Millar is clearly inviting viewers to see Hamtramck as a cautionary tale. The implication seems to be that multiculturalism and immigration may undermine a society if newcomers do not adopt its foundational values.

I think he raises an important question, but I am not convinced by his conclusion.

Certainly, societies need some shared commitments in order to flourish. Respect for democratic institutions, the rule of law, equality before the law, freedom of religion, and peaceful coexistence are essential. A society where people reject these principles would struggle to remain stable.

Yet democratic societies have never required everyone to hold the same moral, religious, or social beliefs. Canadians disagree deeply about abortion, assisted dying, religion, Indigenous reconciliation, immigration, and LGBTQ+ issues. Christians disagree with one another. Muslims disagree with one another. LGBTQ+ communities are themselves diverse. We have not survived because we all think alike, but because we have largely agreed on how to live together despite our differences.

Perhaps Hamtramck reminds us that diversity does not automatically create agreement. In fact, genuine diversity almost guarantees disagreement.

For many years, progressive movements in North America have championed both Muslim inclusion and LGBTQ+ inclusion. These communities have often stood together against racism, discrimination, and exclusion. Yet they do not necessarily share the same moral convictions. Many Muslims hold traditional understandings of sexuality and family life. Many LGBTQ+ advocates hope for public affirmation and visible signs of welcome. When people with profoundly different values participate equally in democratic life, disagreements are inevitable.

At the same time, the Hamtramck case also raises a more specific question. What are the fundamental values that newcomers ought to embrace? Must they embrace every prevailing cultural norm? Must conservative Christians celebrate Pride flags? Must Muslims abandon traditional Islamic ethics? Must progressive Canadians abandon their commitment to LGBTQ+ inclusion? Probably not.

Perhaps a free and democratic society requires something more modest, yet more demanding. It requires a commitment to democratic institutions, the rule of law, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and equal protection under the law, while allowing citizens to hold different moral visions of what constitutes a good and flourishing life.

As a Christian priest, I have come to believe that inclusion does not require everyone to think alike. Nor does diversity succeed only when everyone eventually embraces the same values. Inclusion means creating spaces where people can speak honestly, listen respectfully, and remain in relationship even when consensus proves impossible.

At 360 Community, we have tried to do precisely that. We have hosted conversations on homelessness, addiction, mental health, anti-racism, and gender diversity. Some participants arrive with strong opinions. Others come with uncertainty, discomfort, or disagreement. Not everyone leaves with the same conclusions. Yet many leave with a deeper understanding of their neighbours.

Hamtramck reminds us that all choices have consequences. Welcoming diversity means accepting that people from different cultures, religions, and backgrounds may not share the same vision of human flourishing. But resisting diversity also has consequences. It can lead to fear, isolation, suspicion, and a shrinking willingness to engage with people unlike ourselves.

Perhaps the challenge before our churches, communities, and societies is not to eliminate differences, nor to insist on complete assimilation, but to nurture humility, patience, curiosity, and compassion. We may never arrive at a single shared moral vision. But perhaps we can still become a people committed to remaining neighbours despite our disagreements.

That may be one of the most important callings of our generation.