Murfreesboro, Tennessee, is already beginning to implement the law.
A city in Tennessee is using a recently passed ordinance essentially prohibiting homosexuality in public to try to ban library books that might violate the new rules.
Murfreesboro passed an ordinance in June banning “indecent behavior,” including “indecent exposure, public indecency, lewd behavior, nudity or sexual conduct.” As journalist Erin Reed first reported, this ordinance specifically mentions Section 21-72 of the city code. The city code states that sexual conduct includes homosexuality.
Anyone who violates the new ordinance is barred from hosting public events or selling goods and services at public events for two years. Anyone who violates the ordinance “in the presence of minors” is barred for five years.
An ACLU-backed challenge to the ordinance has already been launched, but that hasn’t stopped city officials from implementing the measure. Last Monday, the Rutherford County steering committee met to discuss removing all books that might potentially violate the ordinance from the public library. The resolution was met with widespread outcry from city residents.
“When have the people who ban books ever been the good guys?” local activist Keri Lambert demanded during the Monday county meeting.
Murfreesboro city officials have already used the ordinance to ban four books that discuss LGBTQ themes. In August, the county library board pulled the books Flamer, Let’s Talk About It, Queerfully and Wonderfully Made, and This Book Is Gay.
The board also implemented a new library card system that categorizes books into certain age groups. When it takes effect next year, children and teenagers will only be able to check out books that correspond to their age group; they will need permission from a parent or guardian to check out “adult” books.
Library director Rita Shacklett worried in August that the new rules would prevent students from accessing books they need for a class. She explained that many classic high school books, such as To Kill a Mockingbird, are now classified as “adult.”
It’s unclear if the county steering committee plans to pull books such as the A Song of Ice and Fire series, which includes multiple depictions of heterosexual sexual conduct.
Murfreesboro’s new ordinance is part of a much larger wave of attacks on LGBTQ rights in Tennessee and the rest of the country. In the past year, the so-called Volunteer State became the first state to try to ban drag performances. That law was overturned in court.
In March, the Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill that would allow people to refuse to perform a marriage if they disagree with it, essentially gutting marriage equality. The bill was introduced in the Senate but deferred until next year.
link: https://newrepublic.com/post/176915/tennessee-town-ban-public-homosexuality
archive link: https://archive.ph/LFMMK
I love how you just make up psychotic delusions like "with or in front of children". Is it because you have already been convicted of this that you think everyone else is like you?
No, it's because the city found it necessary to pass a statue prohibiting it that makes me believe it has probably happened before.
Unlike what you seem to think, passing a law is actually a fairly complex and time consuming process. Not to mention costly, since enforcement isn't free. City councils don't just wake up one day and decide to pass some random laws because it's a Tuesday and they got nothing better to do.
Thats not even what the fucking law says. You are literally just making shit up and parroting InfoWars, a known fascist fake news and propaganda generator.
And yes, they do pass laws like this easily because its a show and has nothing at all to do with dealing with an actual problem. There has always been indecent exposure laws everywhere; this was nothing but pure vitue signaling for authoritarian fascists and their cucks.
Did you actually read the law? Here's the link in case you missed it in the article.
About the only thing that really seems to be offensive here is that it explicitly mentions homosexuality. But as you have correctly said, the majority of it actually deals with things like indecent exposure and sexual activity in public, and yes, this includes heterosexual activity as well.
Are you telling me that indecent exposure and public sexual activity was not illegal before now?
No, I'm telling you that the thing that everyone is getting their panties in a twist about is the simple inclusion of the word "homosexuality" in this text when it already makes fairly clear that ANY display of sexual acts or genitals, no matter the gender or orientation is considered inappropriate in the presence of minors.
The are by no means singling out gay people here or discriminating against homosexuality in any way.
Seems like you couldve said that instead of pulling the usual InfoWars bullshit of calling everyone groomer and pedophile and forced dicksucking and whatever other osychotically delusional rants you've made along the way. No point you make now will ever be considered because you already showed your cards
I didn't say any of those things.
Well I have just answered again all the posts in which you did, in fact, say all of those things.
You lying sack of shit.
Gotta ask though, if you insist that the law against ANY already existed, why did it have to be re-written to specify a particular group? Does it imply that the local leaders dont want to see anyone who is gay? If two guys or two girls are standing too close in the mall will they be arrested? Will the law apply to women? How do you intend to enforce it? Is holding hands a display of homosexuality?
WHY DID YOU NEED THE LAW CHANGED?
I did not say that. I just gave my opinions on the article.
As for why they felt that they needed a new law, you gotta ask the city of Murfreesboro. I’m sure they have a PR department of some sort that’ll be happy to answer your questions.