Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram
Editors note: This article has been updated to reflect the exact quote from A.J. Tiniakos per emails obtained under FOI. The previous quote listed was denied by Mr. Tiniakos.
A longtime Newington resident once again addressed the Town Council on July 14, 2026, to deliver a pointed message: the town’s ad hoc practice of flying the Pride flag while ignoring his repeated requests for a neutral policy limited to government flags only violates basic principles of equal treatment and exposes taxpayers to unnecessary legal risk.
The man who has been raising the flag issue for three years through emails, public comments, and formal requests, Andrae Andreas, outlined his case in detail during public participation at Tuesday's Town Council meeting. He accused the Democrat-majority council of selective enforcement and viewpoint discrimination by approving and flying the pride flag in June and the Organ Donor Awareness flag in April, while refusing even to vote on his “Straight Pride” flag request.
“All my requests are documented,” he stated. “I was advised by a councilor that if I am looking to make a change, I should attend a town meeting.” At the June 9, 2026 meeting, he formally asked the council to vote on flying a straight pride flag “in honor of the heterosexual community.”
Discussion at the June 23 meeting revealed that the mayor, town manager, and council had been warned about how the lack of a flag policy could open the town to liability if officials “pick and choose what special interest flags they will allow” by Town Attorney Matt Ritter, who was appointed on Jan 13, 2026. (The Town Manager's office confirmed to the Centinal that legal advice regarding the flag policy came from Ritter or a colleague at Shipman acting on his behalf.)
Town Manager Jonathan Altshul also recommended on March 19, 2026 that the town consider adopting a flag policy, citing a 2024 white paper from the Office of Legislative Research.
Despite that advice, the council has continued its selective approach and has shown little urgency in adopting clear rules. The resident pointed to emails and recordings proving that some council members attempted to prioritize a formal policy at agenda-setting sessions, only to be shut down. The appearance of a “flag moratorium” item on the July 14 agenda, he argued, “speaks volumes” about the town’s awareness of the problem — and its reluctance to solve it.
“Based on the facts and circumstances outlined above, I am confident that my civil rights have been violated,” he declared, giving formal notice of his intent to pursue legal action to the fullest extent permitted by law. "So in other words, I'm going to sue you."
In public comments, Andreas referenced an email from Councilor A.J. Tiniakos to Councilor Matthew Plourd in which Tiniakos reportedly stated: "bringing a straight flag is insane behavior lol" — but apparently it is not insane for the Town to celebrate gay sex.
Tiniakos expressed support for an inclusive flag policy while Plourd didn't think it was an important or urgent issue. Mayor Jon Trister has promised that, as long as he is mayor, he would do everything he could to be inclusive of the LGBTQ community.
"Sexuality and gender identity are based in science," Mayor Jon Trister said. "In our community, we have gay people that live here. They buy homes. They send their kids to schools here. And we're thrilled to have them here, too, and we want to make sure it's welcoming for everybody."
Supreme Court Precedent Supports Concerns Over Selective Flag Policies
The resident’s position aligns with important First Amendment principles clarified by the U.S. Supreme Court in Shurtleff v. City of Boston (2022). In that case, Boston had maintained an informal flag-raising program on City Hall Plaza in which it approved nearly every private group’s request to fly a flag temporarily. When the city denied a request to fly a Christian flag, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the program had created a designated public forum for private speech. Because the city exercised minimal control over the messages conveyed, denying one viewpoint while allowing others constituted unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
Newington’s current practice — flying some special-interest flags (Pride, Organ Donor) while stonewalling others — creates the same vulnerability. Without a written, consistently applied policy, the town risks claims that it is endorsing favored causes and suppressing disfavored ones. A content-neutral rule limiting town flagpoles to official government flags (U.S. flag, Connecticut state flag, Newington town flag, and recognized military or POW/MIA flags) would eliminate this risk entirely.
Such a “clean” policy is not hostile to any group. It simply returns government property to its proper role: representing the town and the nation as a whole, rather than serving as a billboard for any particular social or political movement. The Pride flag, like any other advocacy banner, represents a contested ideological position. Flying it on town property sends a clear message of official endorsement — precisely the kind of government speech that should be reserved for neutral, unifying symbols.
The Town Council has already been informed of the risks it faces under Shurtleff.
A Simple Solution Exists
The resident’s three-year effort has been reasonable, persistent, and well-documented. He did not initially demand his own flag; he asked the town to remain neutral and fly only government flags. When that was ignored, he requested equal treatment through a straight pride flag vote to highlight the double standard. The council’s refusal to even consider the request, while continuing to approve other special flags, strengthens his claim of discrimination.
Other Connecticut towns have already moved toward cleaner policies. Adopting a straightforward rule that restricts flag displays on municipal property to official government banners would:
Now that the Council appears to recognize the problem, the question is whether Newington will finally adopt a clear, neutral policy — or continue down a path that invites lawsuits and undermines public trust.
Andreas has made his position clear: he will not quietly accept selective treatment. A clean flag policy limited to government flags is the simplest, fairest, and most legally defensible solution available.
Stay updated with the latest in the Constitution State with The CT Centinal
