Republican lawmakers in the US are leaning into outdated definitions of obscenity to outlaw drag and ban books too

For five months this year, homosexuality was prohibited in a Tennessee college town.

In June, the city council of Murfreesboro enacted an ordinance outlawing “indecent exposure, public indecency, lewd behavior, nudity or sexual conduct”. The rule did not explicitly mention homosexuality, but LGBTQ+ people in the town quickly realized that the ordinance references 21-72 of the city code, which categorizes homosexuality as an act of indecent sexual conduct.

The ordinance was essentially a covert ban on LGBTQ+ existence.

Erin Reed, one of the first and only national journalists to cover the ordinance earlier this year, noted that Murfreesboro isn’t “the only community that has these old archaic bits of code that target homosexuality”.

Earlier this month, following a legal challenge from the ACLU of Tennessee, the government of Murfreesboro removed “homosexuality” from the list of acts defined as “public indecency” by the city code. The small victory came after officials repeatedly refused to issue permits for the BoroPride Festival, citing the new ordinance.

  • lad
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    Why is it likely that their opinion has not changed? I, for one, change my opinion if I find it doesn’t suit me anymore

    • oldbaldgrumpy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      If someone voted against a topic like this so many feel so strongly about I think it would be hard to change their minds. What could I say to convince you otherwise on this topic?

      • Blue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s hard to change opinions when religion and lead have rotted your brain

      • lad
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        So you’re implying that an opinion may be subject to change unless one had already voted on some matter based off of that opinion thus committing to following that opinion for the rest of one’s life?

        • oldbaldgrumpy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Not at all, I said that people are on one side of this topic, and it showed in the actual votes they placed. Then with a 5/4 vote in the supreme Court the government told them their opinion didn’t matter. That alone will make someone loath the decision and keep their opinions. I’ve made myself very clear, and I think everyone here understands my point perfectly, some don’t agree with it, to them I say, whatever.

          • lad
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Well, you can count me out, I did not understand your point perfectly, not sure about the rest.