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
Again, read the article.
They don’t kick you out of town. They just ban you from hosting public events or selling goods and services at public events. You’re acting like they’re planning to send gay people to the camps.
Nothing says “freedom loving patriot” like *checks notes* disallowing people from participating in society because they were born a certain way.
How can you even form a coherent thought up there through that massive cloud of cognitive dissonance? I guess it’s like a muscle, and if you work it out enough, even the most extreme dissonance can be brushed off.
Kind of interesting to watch.
They’re not banning anyone from participating in society for being gay, they’re banning them from public events for exposing children to sexual behavior. Big difference.
You can be as gay as you want in the privacy of your own bedroom, but you don’t have a right to expose other people’s children to it.
Where does it say that is what “barred for five years” means? Or is that just your personal interpretation?
It’s clearly a reference to the previous sentence. Basically, if you violate the statue without the presence of minors, you are barred from public events for two years, if minors are present, you are barred for five.
“Clearly” based on what legal precedent?
Based on common sense and basic reading comprehension.
Ah, ‘common sense.’ The thing that had people believing the sun orbited the Earth for thousands of years. Let me know when you get your law degree.
What makes more sense, that the second sentence in the paragraph refers to the first one, or that it stands on its own?
Barred from what, exactly? Public events, working, receiving government aid, or living in the city altogether? This sentence doesn’t make any sense if you read it on its own, without the previous sentence accompanying it. But the previous sentence states that if you violate the statue without minors being present, you are barred from participating in public events for two years. So clearly, all this is saying is that if minors are present when the violation occurs, the same penalty applies, but for five years instead.