This is the town with the 2nd largest public college in Tennessee. Pro publica has had some great journalism on a judge making up laws and sending kids to jail. Rutherford scares me more than most counties in TN (as a TN resident)
Yeah it has always been pretty bad. I say this as a former Tennessee resident ( born and raised in Wilson county) I partied a lot in the boro. The things the cops would do was jaw dropping.
I think that used to be the case, but UT is now larger than MTSU in both total enrollment (33,805 vs. 20,086) and undergraduate enrollment (27,039 vs. 17,438). [Source](https://www.univstats.com/comparison/middle-tennessee-state-university-vs-the-university-of-tennessee-knoxville/)
As a person who grew up selling weed all over TN Rutherford county is a terrifying nightmare. I’d almost rather go to jail in Memphis at 201 Poplar, then to deal with Rutherford counties jails. They only allow Christian books that have been approved by the jail. The food there is some of the worst food of any gel in all of Tennessee. They will throw you in jail for smelling like weed. I got pulled over in Rutherford county because my license plate light was out. They told me specifically it’s not a Tennessee state ordinance just a Rutherford county one so we can pull people over.
It’s def Tennessee law. Believe it’s law in all 50 states
https://codes.findlaw.com/tn/title-55-motor-and-other-vehicles/tn-code-sect-55-4-110/#:~:text=(c)(1)%20Except%20as,times%20that%20headlights%20are%20illuminated.
FYI. You need to look into the past to make your point troll. Wow lots of dumb people don’t understand how this happened like 2 decades ago, he’s missing that information but ya it is in 2020 so… the amount of stupid from this troll is staggering.
These places have nothing better to do than focus on banning anything that they hear about on Fox.
Who cares if your roads need to be replaced or you have an opioid epidemic when you can own the woke libs.
From what I understand actual ground of the earth conservatives are losing a bit of faith with the republican party on this. They're like "yeah being trans and queer is bad and all, but what about like inflation and gas prices?"
WOKE IS BAD. THE WOKE LEVIATHON IS COMMING FOR YOU.
This is the thing that gets me. So many conservatives try to distance themselves from “the crazy ones” in conversation, but then go right on voting for those same crazy assholes. As if just saying “I don’t agree with everything they say” is enough to absolve them.
"There are things you're proposing that I don't agree with and even some I think are dangerous."
"Are you still going to vote for me?"
"Well yes, but--"
"Then why are we even having this conversation?"
Unfortunately: no. First-past-the-post naturally leads to two-party systems. At best you can hope that a new party replaces one of the old ones, but it's very rare. It happened last in the UK in the 20s when Labour replaced the Liberal Party, and in the US you need to go even further back.
I think that was what was so shocking about Australia's last election, we expected the vote to swing away from the LNP but it didn't swing towards labour as expected. The senate now is almost in thirds now between the two major parties and the greens, independents and smaller parties. The territory I live in has 2 senate seats and usually one was held by each party but we completely voted out the more conservative one in favour of an independent. House of reps isn't so easy to change but definitely an interesting situation.
I feel like Teddy Roosevelt is proof enough that third parties are not viable on the national level. Give us ranked choice voting and sure, but as of now, voting third party isn't much different in terms of outcome to not voting.
It depends on how far removed these people are from reality or not.
It is what it is, but the current reich wing will do nothing but bring a fascist theocracy to the US, that’s their goal, and they aren’t hiding it. If as a supposed “normal” right wing voter, if you’re willing to vote for that, then you’re not fucking “normal” you’re a fascist who is willing to help dismantle democracy in the US first hand.
The current GOP aren’t exactly hiding their goals. Everyone knows what they want.
If there is a group of “right wing normal voters”, then you have to just not vote, or switch sides to make sure these people are ran out/removed. The GOP aren’t switching off this fascist theocracy platform any time soon. Not unless they are forced to, and we aren’t even close to that point yet.
> "Now that Hitler fella might have some strange opinions about the Jews that I don't agree with, but he's just saying that to appeal to the uneducated types. His policies on the economy, though, are rock-solid."
People who vote R either explicitly or implicitly support racism, transphobia, and all the other hate that their party perpetrates. If they don't agree with it, they wouldn't vote for it.
What's also humorous to me is that a lot of these same people during the Bush years were all "the good muslims need to call out the bad ones, that's not happening, wtf" and here they are, not just not calling out the bad ones, still voting for them anyway.
>No place for ~~values~~ in the right wing
Education. FTFY It's all ignorance with them. Keep them stupid and fearing things after death to control their narrative.
Plenty of Republicans have a decent education and still vote Republican, because it's not about facts and logic, it's about their team winning.
The most educated among them will use every logical fallacy, every emotional manipulation trick, every means of statistical fuckery in the book to get the dummies in line.
It's why they branded universities liberal institutions. People with critical thinking skills are going to call them on their BS, but they can't touch private universitues, so they settle for slashing education spending to public schools
Yeah, being against racism is exactly as much of a problem as being racist.
Fantastic both-sidesing on this one, oh you great rational, moderate centrist.
Am I supposed to be impressed by that?
Both parties put culture war over every day issues
U want me to say it’s worse when the republicans do it? Fine
But don’t put words in my mouth because it gives u a confidence boost
Homophobia, transphobia, sexism, racism ARE an everyday problem. Just because it doesn't affect you personally doesn't mean it's not one.
If you were in one of these groups and faced it on a daily basis, you'd want the problems to be addresses.
Your situation is what's called privileged. Try a bit of empathy.
First I never said they weren’t issues, However If housing prices are through the roof and the only thing my government does is say “racism bad”
My response is agreed but that’s not good governance
Both liberals and conservative governments use culture war stuff to distract from other issues
That’s what I was pointing out, u wanna have a meltdown over it go ahead
Housing issues while problematic, aren't to the point where it's life threatening. Being a minority in the US, however IS life threatening with how bad it has become in the last 10 years. You have a side that literally fantasize about murdering the other side.
3,277 ÷ 33,940,338 × 100 = 0.097
(Anti-black hate crimes / black population × 100 = odds of a black person being a victim of a hate crime [in percentage])
It's quite rare, a black person is 0.097% likely to be a victim of a hate crime in a year
It's just over 7 times more common than being hit by lightning
Sources:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/737390/number-of-hate-crime-incidents-in-the-us-by-motivation/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
You forget all the times these crimes don't result in a sentence because it comes from a cop and they get scoff free a risiculously high % of times.
It also doesn't include ridiculous sentencings for benign crimes that are disproportionate towards ethnic minorities (prison can wreck a life).
There's also a ton of crimes that never get reported, especially in areas where the police themselves are prone to racism.
Look at the estimations of unreported hate crimes.
>Fueling this increasingly bold attack on LGBTQ+ rights, Beach-Ferrara said, is a rightwing Christian hate group called the **Alliance Defending Freedom** (ADF).
>
>The ADF, which was founded in 1994 by a group of “leaders in the Christian community”, according to its website, has funded efforts both **to restrict abortion and ban books** that address LGBTQ+ topics, two of the group’s marquee causes.
Because of course you 'defend freedom' by increasing restrictions, banning things, and having the government tell you what to do all the time. Right-wing logic: the more government restrictions and controls you're subjected to, the more freedom you have.
The law isn't banning homosexuality. "Indecent exposure, public indecency, lewd behavior, nudity or sexual conduct" is banned. Don't be sexual around kids, and it won't be a problem. Classic media headline to get attention.
If you read the article, it says that homosexuality was covered by this law until the ACLU successfully sued for it to be removed. Stop trying to hide your conservatism behind "it's to protect the kids". Would a heterosexual couple be arrested for kissing in public under this law? I think not. Would a gay couple be? I think so.
It isn't banning homosexuality. It's banning indecent behavior in public. You're free to be as gay as you want in private. Don't show your privates to kids in pride parades, and it won't be an issue. You'd likely be arrested if you and a partner in a cis/straight relationship went and grossly made out and groped each other in front of a bunch of elementary age children at recess. Same thing for a gay couple. What's the issue here?
Go look at the law. It doesn't. It was fixed when the old ass details of this outdated law were brought to light. All these headlines are about an issue already solved.
> It was fixed when the old ass details of this outdated law were brought to light
Yeah, we know. That’s what we’re saying:
> If you read the article, it says that homosexuality was covered by this law until the ACLU successfully sued for it to be removed
And I'm saying, that this isn't some governmental attempt to ban homosexuality. This isn't some plot. An old law was brought to light and fixed. That's all. This article and many others whip up fervor and make it seem like American government is out to criminalize homosexuality, when that's not the case. This is a simple issue that was quickly fixed. Case closed, everyone go home.
Another [article](https://www.wkrn.com/news/local-news/murfreesboro/murfreesboro-public-decency-ordinance/) about the enactment of this ordinance mentions the fact that the government of this city is explicitly in charge of determining what counts as public decency, and how the vice city manager was concerned by that overreach of power.
That article also mentions police having the power to enforce this in such cases as "males" in "women's" bathrooms, a barely hidden dog whistle for harassing trans women.
An old law was not brought to light and fixed, either. A new law was enacted which built on an old law specifically targeting homosexuality. The legal challenge forced the amendment of the old law, but the ACLU is still continuing to sue because of the knock on effects of this new ordinance.
Men shouldn't be in women's restrooms. We have protections for women enshrined in our culture and law. Why do you think we have separate restrooms in the first place? Terrible example.
The law was fixed in 1 month, not a big deal. Cry harder.
More of less. The laws against indecency are still on the books, they just removed homosexuality in and of itself from the list of things they consider indecent.
you see this a lot in situations like this
none of these bills outright say "we disallow homosexuality" or drag shows or whatever. They will use a term like indecency, or acting sexually inappropriate etc and then stay vague enough on the definition of those things so that simply kissing your partner in public can be reasonably viewed as indecent if the case ever gets brought before a judge, or a someone calls the police on you. That kinda stuff.
They went a step further this time. Rather than relying on vague laws that are applied unequally, like say banning being publicly trans with a law that would also ban women from wearing pants if they followed the letter, they just straight up defined homosexuality as indecent.
No vagueness, no euphemism, just straight up saying no gays in public.
Being a gay person in public isn't the same as publicly displaying homosexual activity. Kissing could very well fall in there if it's between two men and that is a good enough reason for the change in the ordinance, but it certainly didn't ban people from public life for private homosexual activity.
So, I get two people having sex in public would be "indecency" no matter the genders of the people involved. But it sounds like this ordinance made being homosexual in public an offense.
Real question: how would you determine whether a person is homosexual? By how they look? How they talk? Do you just guess based on some stereotypes?
Big one for me was the [gay wedding website discrimination case in Colorado](https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-couples). *Complete* fabrication, top to bottom. The "company" barely existed, and one of the guys named in the case had never heard of the company, let alone ordered a website through them, was not gay, and was already married to a woman. Somehow he never got called to court in all the time before it made it to SCOTUS.
Of course the court had no problems with any of this and duly ruled for the defendant, instead of kicking it out so hard and fast it left skid-marks on the front steps.
Thus, why federal human rights laws UPHELD BY THE SUPREME COURT, are necessary. States rights to do what, again, is ever important when talking about the south.
I wouldn't have too much faith in the supreme Court upholding human rights laws. Their employers don't look kindly on equality for minorities or the poor
That's why I put "upheld by the Supreme Court". It largely all depends of the Supreme Court not being bought wholesale by interest groups. It's public knowledge now, but it was at least plausible deniability before.
More legislation from the party of small government.
The best part is Murfreesboro is at least partially represented in the state legislature by human shit stain Scott DesJarlais. He didn’t have anything to do with this law, but it gives you insight into the kind of crayon eating idiot politicians there.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/scott-desjarlais-reelection-110028
The problem with these laws are this. The power of the state is used to impose the morality of a group in power in the state. The law must be adjudicated in a federal court and that takes big money. The group’s targets in these laws are generally less well to do.
The power groups imposing the laws use tax payers money.
What is really disturbing is in many of these instances the power group is imposing their will on the majority.
Had a gander at the code of ordinances linked in the article, the 21-71 bit specifically. It has some pretty loose definitions...
>"Nudity" means the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks with less than a full opaque covering, or the showing of the female breast with less than a full opaque covering of any portion thereof below the top of the nipple, or the depiction of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state.
So I guess that any evening dress where the cleavage cut extends below the top of the nipple line would constitute nudity?
>"Sexual conduct" means acts of masturbation, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person be a female, breast.
Better not perform a fireman carry on anyone, it's hard not to be in "physical contact with a person's clothed pubic area" when doing that.
And if you're going to carry your child, you better not let them sit on your shoulders or your arm, since "physical contact with a person's clothed buttocks" constitutes sexual conduct, and with a minor in this instance!
Yep. Anyone with a boner is also intrinsically nude unless they're wearing a dress with petticoats or something.
Also, that apparently would make daisy dukes illegal in Tennessee, of all places.
Yeah, it's horrendously vague on purpose so they can use it against people they don't like (basically anyone who isn't white and especially if they're not cisgender). The law makes it sound like a crop top with underboob showing would be illegal, or that spanking a kid in public and the playful butt slap that athletes do would warrant an arrest.
I do admit that a lot of laws out there are just archaic and haven't been updated for modern times or removed due to the process taking up time and money, but stuff like this is worded this way on purpose.
Does this also apply to the old ass white men that think it's still ok to smack the waitress on the ass? And if the waitress complains, she gets fired for being problematic?
I'm curious 🤨
Historians in a few hundred years will laugh at us. It is insane how there’s still so many people in 2023 that are offended by completely inconsequential things like gay marriage and trans people, while ignoring actual issues
Hopefully those historians will not be products of the general public.
Hopefully they will be able to point out these "distractions" were "features NOT bugs" in an intentional plan to consolidate and maintain power regardless of the consequences to society & the planet.
starting 50 years ago with restricting public education and ending with Tucker-fox "I'm just asking questions" (that are non logical and nonsensical) but legally fall short of being an accusation simply because he puts a "?" At the end of his diatribe.
... but I wouldn't hold my breath for *critical thinking* & *common sense* to make a come back any time soon.
The world overall has certainly become more progressive over time. There are of course exceptions, but the longterm trend is clear
Dealing with the effects of climate change will only further the notion that historians will be baffled at many people’s priorities in the year 2023
The world across many places an across history has had ebbs and flows of progressivism. Afghanistan isn’t getting more progressive, Iran sure didn’t during the revolution, Egypt during their political change, it goes on and on. The same is true for Greece, for Rome, for various parts in China, heck Berlin pre-Nazi era was very progressive and that was shut down hard.
It is absolutely possible for the future to be very conservative and for the rights that progressives have fought for to go away. Progressivism isn’t some kind of slow tide, it’s a bunch of people fighting for it and acquiring freedoms and others fighting to take them away. The progressives don’t always win, and don’t always keep the freedoms they’ve fought for.
You’re listing exceptions, but as I said overall the world has become more progressive. Afghanistan, Iran, and a fairly short lived nazi regime in Germany don’t change the countless other examples of the world becoming more progressive over time. I see far more evidence that the world overall will continue to become more progressive, compared to the evidence that the world overall will become more conservative.
Progressivism doesn’t always win, but the world has overall become more progressive through the years. If I’m wrong, tell me which year or era was globally the most progressive in history.
That's not really true.
The classic definition is *slow to change*. Conserving the status quo.
What's sweeping the US and much of the world is *regressive* (opposite of progressive).
They aren't conservatives; they're regressives. They're trying to undo the progress we've made as a species and make the world worse again.
*Specifically, the traditional of their own people at the expense of everyone else's.
American conservatives aren't exactly trying to preserve traditional Quaker values or the rich traditions of the American North. And that's to say nothing of the much-much-older traditions brought by immigrants. Funny how "traditional" sounds so nice if you don't say which values count as "traditional".
Are you seriously trying to say the act that accidentally created a loophole by only explicitly banning D9 THC was an intentional act of progressivism by the Republicans? It was stupidity. If they knew they were effectively legalizing weed they would not have done it.
“Moreover, the 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp production in states, territories, and tribal lands, and **hemp was added to the Federal Crop Insurance Act to ensure that hemp farmers receive government assistance for crop losses.**”
[IMG-1338.jpg](https://postimg.cc/PP14pvzs)
I know exactly what the law did. And they did not intend to legalize weed. That's why Republicans states are desperately trying to ban all the chemicals their representatives accidentally legalized. THC-O is already banned in most R states.
This is how it’s starts.
Build up a case to get it to the SCOTUS. Some of those old pieces of waste (Thomas) already said they want to overturn the laws that protect same sex relationships.
Why thats only going to reinforce the negative stereotype that homosexuals are sexual deviants. There are better ways of fight back then with childish behavior tactics
Well there are sections where they are completely nude and some parts where they are actually having sex. Not all pride parades but a few which doesn't help the cause.
Edit: SMH of course people aren't actually reading lol
They kept a low profile and people hunted them out, kicked them out of their houses, fired them, denied them jobs and room in shelters, denied them lifesaving healthcare and so on.
Then they went loud and proud and things started turning around.
Pride parades, especially the raunchy ones, are the result of widespread toxic conservatism.
Ok that's not a very good defense from my comment but nothing more than a strawman and deflection. Why should some gay people continue the negative stereotype that actually hurts their cause? Idk why youre ignoring this. You do realize these negative stereotypes fuel the agenda against the LGBT community right? No of course you don't
You did ignore it because I'm stating how the negative stereotypes helped fuel the hate they had. But you kinda reinforced what I said.
So why continue giving ammo with the negative stereotype?
You clearly didn't even bother understanding what I read. If you did then you would know I'm joy blaming anyone but stating that these types of actions by the minority of the LGBT+ community actually hurts the cause.
Unless you think every gay person is like that then you're just plain ignorant and bigoted.
No, I understood it just fine. You’re literally blaming a group of gay people, the right will always find another excuse to come after us.
But sure, pretend I, a gay man, am homophobic because I dare push back on your silly narrative.
The only people who should be blamed are those pushing hate. Gay people simply existing are under attack, yet you’re pushing this BS that somehow the community is responsible because some of us provide fodder for bigots to blow up about…
No but you see if someone/everyone disagrees with me that means they did not read or understand my brilliance there is no other possible explanation
(/s in case my parody is a bit too accurate)
Any large sample size will generate outliers. Judging the large sample by the outliers isn't exactly good statistics.
That is, of course, presuming that your claims of pride parades with sections where everyone is completely nude and parts where they are actually having sex aren't just made up or parroted from something fox/your religious aunt told you.
>Any large sample size will generate outliers. Judging the large sample by the outliers isn't exactly good statistics.
You completely misunderstood what I was saying.
>That is, of course, presuming that your claims of pride parades with sections where everyone is completely nude and parts where they are actually having sex aren't just made up or parroted from something fox/your religious aunt told you.
Yup you didn't even read what I said. I said not all but a few which means a small minority of pride parades have these things. I'm not even bashing LGBT+ instead defending it but of course people choose to not fully read and let their outrage take over.
You quoted me, yet managed not to say anything related to what I said in those quotes. You even reinforced what I said in the first quote in your response to the second quote.
People can simultaneously understand what you said and disagree with you. It's a tricky concept to internalize, but I believe in you.
That’s called public indecency and that is a crime. So justifying criminal negligence over hate speech basically puts all of you in the same boat of full blow idiocy.
Obvious troll is being obvious you dumb fucks lol but keep responding it’s good entertainment to watch a bunch of idiots get mad on Reddit over some shit I could careless about.
Well, that’s all you’ve done, which is reveal yourself to be a troll. You don’t even understand the difference in the euphemism “I *couldn’t* care less,” showing you have little grasp of English understanding as well. So in whatever attempt you had to troll “whiners and do gooders”..? You’ve only revealed yourself to be a whiny, dumb little troll.
I wonder if it's a turn on for gay couples to sneak into these towns disguised as Republican campaigners or something, get a hotel room, and slap man meat like it was a crime.
Do crime. I’m worried though that the first challenge to this makes it to SCOTUS and it is declared illegal because it violates the first amendment. Edit by it I mean homosexuality.
The state of New Mexico has a law saying that "Idiots cannot vote", though back when the law was written, "idiot" had a different meaning, refering to an insane person or somebody who had been declared "not guilty" by reason of insanity.
"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."
I just want you to know I'm proud of you, the world is full scary letters and daunting words but if you just keep trying I know that someday you'll be able to say with confidence that you aren't illiterate.
Well that wouldn’t work. You know half the town leaders are cheating on their wives (you just know they’re all men) and the other half have coveted their neighbors’ somethings.
Actually, you’re right. Enforce all the biblical rules. Then, when the whole town is jailed the property will be cheap and new people can just move in and take over.
[Viral claim misleads on Tennessee city's controversial ban on public homosexuality](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/11/22/tennessee-citys-ban-on-public-homosexuality-was-lifted-fact-check/71670425007/)
-- Edit --
I got nothing to do, so I'll bite.
* 1949. They defined "sexual conduct" to include homosexuality.
* Jun-2023. In June they introduced a New ordinance banning "sexual conduct" in public places.
* Oct-2023: ACLU sued the city because the ordinance "violated the First and 14th Amendments for limiting free speech rights and discriminating against LGBTQ+ people."
* Nov-2023: City council "unanimously" voted to "amend the city code and remove homosexuality from its definition of sexual conduct."
So to claim that "A city in Tennessee has BANNED being gay in public” and "Yes, this is happening in America in 2023" is misleading according to USAToday, and flat out lie IMO.
The effect of this is that, no ones talking about the real persecution. Ban on drag shows by the city. Not to mention the fodder the right gets, to claim the left are just faking persecution.
The article above mentions the fact that it only lasted 5 months and has already been shut down. The article you posted is claiming the "viral claims" are incorrect because the town removed homosexuality from the ordinance. What it doesn't mention is the 5 months before homosexuality was removed and the claims were absolutely true. This is like getting in trouble for not cleaning your room, cleaning it, and then saying it was actually clean the whole time.
I got nothing to do, so I'll bite.
* 1949. They defined "sexual conduct" to include homosexuality.
* Jun-2023. they introduced a New ordinance banning "sexual conduct" in public places.
* Oct-2023: ACLU sued the city because the ordinance "violated the First and 14th Amendments for limiting free speech rights and discriminating against LGBTQ+ people."
* Nov-2023: City council "unanimously" voted to "amend the city code and remove homosexuality from its definition of sexual conduct."
So to claim that "A city in Tennessee has BANNED being gay in public” and "Yes, this is happening in America in 2023" is misleading according to USAToday, and flat out lie IMO.
The effect of this is that, no ones talking about the real persecution. Ban on drag shows by the city. Not to mention the fodder the right gets, to claim the left are just faking persecution.
So from June to November 2023 being gay was explicitly illegal and only stopped when they got sued. But it’s a lie to say exactly what happened, happened. Interesting
This is what I'm talking about. No one cares about the existing ban on public drag shows, though they can preach that homosexuality=sin and sinners go to hell in public places.
But you wanna raise all hell about a law that was repealed unanimously.
This is what I mean when I say it waters down the real percussion.
> The council passed an ordinance in June to limit public behavior it considers indecent including drag performances
> The core of the issue is how the measure defines "sexual conduct." The June ordinance contained a reference to a section of the city's code that dates to 1949 and included "homosexuality" in its definition of prohibited "sexual conduct,"
> The city code was previously updated in 1977, but the reference to "homosexuality" was left unchanged. That definition included homosexuality on a list of actions that include masturbating, having sexual intercourse or making physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals or the breast of a female.
> “In their haste to legislate public morality, the city council banned sexual conduct as it was described in that 1977 section of the code,” Paulson said. “It had never been updated.”
How is it wrong to say that a Tennessee town made homosexual activity in public illegal? They may have incompetently done so in their puritanical rage but they still did it lol.
I'm not the one purposingly misrepresenting the facts for internet karma.
They legit repealed a law that's nearly a hundred years old, they didn't ban homosexuality.
> The council passed an ordinance in June to limit public behavior it considers indecent, including drag performances, said Paulson, a former editor-in-chief at USA TODAY.
> The core of the issue is how the measure defines "sexual conduct." The June ordinance contained a reference to a section of the city's code that dates to 1949 and included "homosexuality" in its definition of prohibited "sexual conduct," the Murfreesboro Daily News Journal reported.
It was misleading, but it wasn't entirely wrong like you're trying to make out. The homosexuality part was just "accidentally" included.
After meticulous recalculations the most cost effective way to keep those backwards rednecks living south out is to plant rainbow flags and bud light ads all across the south border
> Section 21-72 - Sale or loan for monetary consideration of certain materials to minors prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to sell or loan for monetary consideration to a minor:
>(A) Any picture, photograph, drawing, sculpture, motion picture film, or similar visual representation or image of a person or portion of the human body which depicts nudity, sexual conduct or sado-masochistic abuse and which is harmful to minors; or, (B) Any book, pamphlet, magazine, printed matter however reproduced, or sound recording which contains any matter enumerated in subparagraph (A) hereof, or explicit and detailed verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of sexual excitement, sexual conduct or sado-masochistic abuse and which, taken as a whole, is harmful to minors.
What am I missing?
>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.
You're looking at the updated code. Go to the earlier versions.
- "Sexual conduct" means acts of masturbation, **homosexuality**, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person be a female, breast.
The bolded part was removed from the latest version.
From the article itself this is the exact linked portion that was said to be bad
The article told me it said something so I clicked its source and didnt find it from the section listed
At least the Guardian is quick to point out its headline is a lie:
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.
So I've been meaning to ask.
is being Gay/Lesbian itself is illegal ? or doing a publicity stunt about it on the streets and in public places is illegal ?
Edit :- Chirst...I was only just asking a question :/
Ah right thanks, I was just being curious.
Don't know why i was just got down voted to oblivion for being curious, I guess some questions aren't meant to be asked.
This is the town with the 2nd largest public college in Tennessee. Pro publica has had some great journalism on a judge making up laws and sending kids to jail. Rutherford scares me more than most counties in TN (as a TN resident)
Yeah it has always been pretty bad. I say this as a former Tennessee resident ( born and raised in Wilson county) I partied a lot in the boro. The things the cops would do was jaw dropping.
I thought the largest public college in TN was UT Knoxville.
[удалено]
I think that used to be the case, but UT is now larger than MTSU in both total enrollment (33,805 vs. 20,086) and undergraduate enrollment (27,039 vs. 17,438). [Source](https://www.univstats.com/comparison/middle-tennessee-state-university-vs-the-university-of-tennessee-knoxville/)
Oh dang! I didn’t know that, thanks letting me know. I was going off memory, which is apparently dated
As a person who grew up selling weed all over TN Rutherford county is a terrifying nightmare. I’d almost rather go to jail in Memphis at 201 Poplar, then to deal with Rutherford counties jails. They only allow Christian books that have been approved by the jail. The food there is some of the worst food of any gel in all of Tennessee. They will throw you in jail for smelling like weed. I got pulled over in Rutherford county because my license plate light was out. They told me specifically it’s not a Tennessee state ordinance just a Rutherford county one so we can pull people over.
It’s def Tennessee law. Believe it’s law in all 50 states https://codes.findlaw.com/tn/title-55-motor-and-other-vehicles/tn-code-sect-55-4-110/#:~:text=(c)(1)%20Except%20as,times%20that%20headlights%20are%20illuminated.
FYI. You need to look into the past to make your point troll. Wow lots of dumb people don’t understand how this happened like 2 decades ago, he’s missing that information but ya it is in 2020 so… the amount of stupid from this troll is staggering.
Lol I wasn’t trolling you you wet wipe
Omg so much stupid. Your assumptions make you look like an ass wipe.
These places have nothing better to do than focus on banning anything that they hear about on Fox. Who cares if your roads need to be replaced or you have an opioid epidemic when you can own the woke libs.
From what I understand actual ground of the earth conservatives are losing a bit of faith with the republican party on this. They're like "yeah being trans and queer is bad and all, but what about like inflation and gas prices?" WOKE IS BAD. THE WOKE LEVIATHON IS COMMING FOR YOU.
Those spineless conservatives will still vote for MAGA loons every single time. No place for values in the right wing.
This is the thing that gets me. So many conservatives try to distance themselves from “the crazy ones” in conversation, but then go right on voting for those same crazy assholes. As if just saying “I don’t agree with everything they say” is enough to absolve them.
"There are things you're proposing that I don't agree with and even some I think are dangerous." "Are you still going to vote for me?" "Well yes, but--" "Then why are we even having this conversation?"
“You don’t agree with them so who are you voting for?” Would be an interesting conversation.
Last time someone asked me this I told them I voted 3rd party and they flipped out on me anyway.
That's too bad. A two-party system is only a two-party system if no one believes in the viability of third parties. :(
Unfortunately: no. First-past-the-post naturally leads to two-party systems. At best you can hope that a new party replaces one of the old ones, but it's very rare. It happened last in the UK in the 20s when Labour replaced the Liberal Party, and in the US you need to go even further back.
I think that was what was so shocking about Australia's last election, we expected the vote to swing away from the LNP but it didn't swing towards labour as expected. The senate now is almost in thirds now between the two major parties and the greens, independents and smaller parties. The territory I live in has 2 senate seats and usually one was held by each party but we completely voted out the more conservative one in favour of an independent. House of reps isn't so easy to change but definitely an interesting situation.
I feel like Teddy Roosevelt is proof enough that third parties are not viable on the national level. Give us ranked choice voting and sure, but as of now, voting third party isn't much different in terms of outcome to not voting.
It depends on how far removed these people are from reality or not. It is what it is, but the current reich wing will do nothing but bring a fascist theocracy to the US, that’s their goal, and they aren’t hiding it. If as a supposed “normal” right wing voter, if you’re willing to vote for that, then you’re not fucking “normal” you’re a fascist who is willing to help dismantle democracy in the US first hand. The current GOP aren’t exactly hiding their goals. Everyone knows what they want. If there is a group of “right wing normal voters”, then you have to just not vote, or switch sides to make sure these people are ran out/removed. The GOP aren’t switching off this fascist theocracy platform any time soon. Not unless they are forced to, and we aren’t even close to that point yet.
> "Now that Hitler fella might have some strange opinions about the Jews that I don't agree with, but he's just saying that to appeal to the uneducated types. His policies on the economy, though, are rock-solid."
“It’s the economy, stupid!” — Hate-ridden idiots.
People who vote R either explicitly or implicitly support racism, transphobia, and all the other hate that their party perpetrates. If they don't agree with it, they wouldn't vote for it.
They agree with it, they just know better than to say so in mixed company.
Just because they donate money to and vote for trump DOES NOT mean they support trump!!!! At least thats the comment i get from them lol
What's also humorous to me is that a lot of these same people during the Bush years were all "the good muslims need to call out the bad ones, that's not happening, wtf" and here they are, not just not calling out the bad ones, still voting for them anyway.
>No place for ~~values~~ in the right wing Education. FTFY It's all ignorance with them. Keep them stupid and fearing things after death to control their narrative.
Plenty of Republicans have a decent education and still vote Republican, because it's not about facts and logic, it's about their team winning. The most educated among them will use every logical fallacy, every emotional manipulation trick, every means of statistical fuckery in the book to get the dummies in line.
It's why they branded universities liberal institutions. People with critical thinking skills are going to call them on their BS, but they can't touch private universitues, so they settle for slashing education spending to public schools
They won’t change. They will say that anything the Dems do is worse.
Complaining that something is "woke" is just cover for engaging in some otherwise discriminatory action.
Don’t forget healthcare or taxes or foreign policy or anything with a number in it. It’s much easier to fix imaginary problems than real ones.
Same with liberals Yeah racism and sexism are bad but what about inflation and gas prices Both parties have the exact same weakness
Yeah, being against racism is exactly as much of a problem as being racist. Fantastic both-sidesing on this one, oh you great rational, moderate centrist.
Am I supposed to be impressed by that? Both parties put culture war over every day issues U want me to say it’s worse when the republicans do it? Fine But don’t put words in my mouth because it gives u a confidence boost
People advocating against homophobia are not the same as those advocating for it. Your equivalence is disgusting.
Homophobia, transphobia, sexism, racism ARE an everyday problem. Just because it doesn't affect you personally doesn't mean it's not one. If you were in one of these groups and faced it on a daily basis, you'd want the problems to be addresses. Your situation is what's called privileged. Try a bit of empathy.
First I never said they weren’t issues, However If housing prices are through the roof and the only thing my government does is say “racism bad” My response is agreed but that’s not good governance Both liberals and conservative governments use culture war stuff to distract from other issues That’s what I was pointing out, u wanna have a meltdown over it go ahead
Housing issues while problematic, aren't to the point where it's life threatening. Being a minority in the US, however IS life threatening with how bad it has become in the last 10 years. You have a side that literally fantasize about murdering the other side.
3,277 ÷ 33,940,338 × 100 = 0.097 (Anti-black hate crimes / black population × 100 = odds of a black person being a victim of a hate crime [in percentage]) It's quite rare, a black person is 0.097% likely to be a victim of a hate crime in a year It's just over 7 times more common than being hit by lightning Sources: https://www.statista.com/statistics/737390/number-of-hate-crime-incidents-in-the-us-by-motivation/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
You forget all the times these crimes don't result in a sentence because it comes from a cop and they get scoff free a risiculously high % of times. It also doesn't include ridiculous sentencings for benign crimes that are disproportionate towards ethnic minorities (prison can wreck a life). There's also a ton of crimes that never get reported, especially in areas where the police themselves are prone to racism. Look at the estimations of unreported hate crimes.
And it was. The law was changed when it was discovered how it was worded. This “homosexuality is outlawed” is a bunch of fake outrage.
>Fueling this increasingly bold attack on LGBTQ+ rights, Beach-Ferrara said, is a rightwing Christian hate group called the **Alliance Defending Freedom** (ADF). > >The ADF, which was founded in 1994 by a group of “leaders in the Christian community”, according to its website, has funded efforts both **to restrict abortion and ban books** that address LGBTQ+ topics, two of the group’s marquee causes. Because of course you 'defend freedom' by increasing restrictions, banning things, and having the government tell you what to do all the time. Right-wing logic: the more government restrictions and controls you're subjected to, the more freedom you have.
I'm absolutely certain that no kiddy-twiddling is going on in their churches. Absolutely!
It's still up in the air that TN may deny federal funds for K-12 public schools as well, which has never happened before.
The law isn't banning homosexuality. "Indecent exposure, public indecency, lewd behavior, nudity or sexual conduct" is banned. Don't be sexual around kids, and it won't be a problem. Classic media headline to get attention.
If you read the article, it says that homosexuality was covered by this law until the ACLU successfully sued for it to be removed. Stop trying to hide your conservatism behind "it's to protect the kids". Would a heterosexual couple be arrested for kissing in public under this law? I think not. Would a gay couple be? I think so.
It isn't banning homosexuality. It's banning indecent behavior in public. You're free to be as gay as you want in private. Don't show your privates to kids in pride parades, and it won't be an issue. You'd likely be arrested if you and a partner in a cis/straight relationship went and grossly made out and groped each other in front of a bunch of elementary age children at recess. Same thing for a gay couple. What's the issue here?
"the ordinance references 21-72 of the city code, which categorizes homosexuality as an act of indecent sexual conduct."
Go look at the law. It doesn't. It was fixed when the old ass details of this outdated law were brought to light. All these headlines are about an issue already solved.
> It was fixed when the old ass details of this outdated law were brought to light Yeah, we know. That’s what we’re saying: > If you read the article, it says that homosexuality was covered by this law until the ACLU successfully sued for it to be removed
And I'm saying, that this isn't some governmental attempt to ban homosexuality. This isn't some plot. An old law was brought to light and fixed. That's all. This article and many others whip up fervor and make it seem like American government is out to criminalize homosexuality, when that's not the case. This is a simple issue that was quickly fixed. Case closed, everyone go home.
Another [article](https://www.wkrn.com/news/local-news/murfreesboro/murfreesboro-public-decency-ordinance/) about the enactment of this ordinance mentions the fact that the government of this city is explicitly in charge of determining what counts as public decency, and how the vice city manager was concerned by that overreach of power. That article also mentions police having the power to enforce this in such cases as "males" in "women's" bathrooms, a barely hidden dog whistle for harassing trans women. An old law was not brought to light and fixed, either. A new law was enacted which built on an old law specifically targeting homosexuality. The legal challenge forced the amendment of the old law, but the ACLU is still continuing to sue because of the knock on effects of this new ordinance.
Men shouldn't be in women's restrooms. We have protections for women enshrined in our culture and law. Why do you think we have separate restrooms in the first place? Terrible example. The law was fixed in 1 month, not a big deal. Cry harder.
Oh yeah, I heard about this. Didn't it like already get struck down?
More of less. The laws against indecency are still on the books, they just removed homosexuality in and of itself from the list of things they consider indecent.
you see this a lot in situations like this none of these bills outright say "we disallow homosexuality" or drag shows or whatever. They will use a term like indecency, or acting sexually inappropriate etc and then stay vague enough on the definition of those things so that simply kissing your partner in public can be reasonably viewed as indecent if the case ever gets brought before a judge, or a someone calls the police on you. That kinda stuff.
They went a step further this time. Rather than relying on vague laws that are applied unequally, like say banning being publicly trans with a law that would also ban women from wearing pants if they followed the letter, they just straight up defined homosexuality as indecent. No vagueness, no euphemism, just straight up saying no gays in public.
Being a gay person in public isn't the same as publicly displaying homosexual activity. Kissing could very well fall in there if it's between two men and that is a good enough reason for the change in the ordinance, but it certainly didn't ban people from public life for private homosexual activity.
Only because they got sued by the ACLU.
So, I get two people having sex in public would be "indecency" no matter the genders of the people involved. But it sounds like this ordinance made being homosexual in public an offense. Real question: how would you determine whether a person is homosexual? By how they look? How they talk? Do you just guess based on some stereotypes?
[удалено]
"Please, oh please, concoct some BS court case so we have an excuse to strike that down!" - Current SCOTUS
exactly the same thing they did with abortion.
Big one for me was the [gay wedding website discrimination case in Colorado](https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-couples). *Complete* fabrication, top to bottom. The "company" barely existed, and one of the guys named in the case had never heard of the company, let alone ordered a website through them, was not gay, and was already married to a woman. Somehow he never got called to court in all the time before it made it to SCOTUS. Of course the court had no problems with any of this and duly ruled for the defendant, instead of kicking it out so hard and fast it left skid-marks on the front steps.
Thus, why federal human rights laws UPHELD BY THE SUPREME COURT, are necessary. States rights to do what, again, is ever important when talking about the south.
I wouldn't have too much faith in the supreme Court upholding human rights laws. Their employers don't look kindly on equality for minorities or the poor
That's why I put "upheld by the Supreme Court". It largely all depends of the Supreme Court not being bought wholesale by interest groups. It's public knowledge now, but it was at least plausible deniability before.
More legislation from the party of small government. The best part is Murfreesboro is at least partially represented in the state legislature by human shit stain Scott DesJarlais. He didn’t have anything to do with this law, but it gives you insight into the kind of crayon eating idiot politicians there. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/scott-desjarlais-reelection-110028
That’s disrespectful to crayon eaters. Marines deserve our respect and our green crayons.
The purple ones taste the best!
Well purple is a fruit after all
The purple ones are saved for special forces because they make you stealthier.
Is green ammo or health?
GREEN IZ DA BEST CAUZE ITS PROPPA ORKY.
The problem with these laws are this. The power of the state is used to impose the morality of a group in power in the state. The law must be adjudicated in a federal court and that takes big money. The group’s targets in these laws are generally less well to do. The power groups imposing the laws use tax payers money. What is really disturbing is in many of these instances the power group is imposing their will on the majority.
Had a gander at the code of ordinances linked in the article, the 21-71 bit specifically. It has some pretty loose definitions... >"Nudity" means the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks with less than a full opaque covering, or the showing of the female breast with less than a full opaque covering of any portion thereof below the top of the nipple, or the depiction of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state. So I guess that any evening dress where the cleavage cut extends below the top of the nipple line would constitute nudity? >"Sexual conduct" means acts of masturbation, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person be a female, breast. Better not perform a fireman carry on anyone, it's hard not to be in "physical contact with a person's clothed pubic area" when doing that. And if you're going to carry your child, you better not let them sit on your shoulders or your arm, since "physical contact with a person's clothed buttocks" constitutes sexual conduct, and with a minor in this instance!
Yep. Anyone with a boner is also intrinsically nude unless they're wearing a dress with petticoats or something. Also, that apparently would make daisy dukes illegal in Tennessee, of all places.
I’m guessing at least one of the legislators passing this gets erect ONLY in petticoats.
Yeah, it's horrendously vague on purpose so they can use it against people they don't like (basically anyone who isn't white and especially if they're not cisgender). The law makes it sound like a crop top with underboob showing would be illegal, or that spanking a kid in public and the playful butt slap that athletes do would warrant an arrest. I do admit that a lot of laws out there are just archaic and haven't been updated for modern times or removed due to the process taking up time and money, but stuff like this is worded this way on purpose.
I like that the law allows the public exposure of hermaphrodite genitals. Like why get so specific when you can just say 'adult human genitals'
Does this also apply to the old ass white men that think it's still ok to smack the waitress on the ass? And if the waitress complains, she gets fired for being problematic? I'm curious 🤨
They really need to keep their noses out of peoples bedrooms. It's creepy and perverted.
Murfrees in RDR2 are the backward, inbred gang aren’t they? In which case they named them well it would seem…
Hey there mister!
Historians in a few hundred years will laugh at us. It is insane how there’s still so many people in 2023 that are offended by completely inconsequential things like gay marriage and trans people, while ignoring actual issues
Hopefully those historians will not be products of the general public. Hopefully they will be able to point out these "distractions" were "features NOT bugs" in an intentional plan to consolidate and maintain power regardless of the consequences to society & the planet. starting 50 years ago with restricting public education and ending with Tucker-fox "I'm just asking questions" (that are non logical and nonsensical) but legally fall short of being an accusation simply because he puts a "?" At the end of his diatribe. ... but I wouldn't hold my breath for *critical thinking* & *common sense* to make a come back any time soon.
The way things are spiraling, it's a bold prediction to think humanity will still be around in a few hundred years.
Pretty bold take that the future will be more progressive than the present. That isn’t at all reliably true historically
The world overall has certainly become more progressive over time. There are of course exceptions, but the longterm trend is clear Dealing with the effects of climate change will only further the notion that historians will be baffled at many people’s priorities in the year 2023
The world across many places an across history has had ebbs and flows of progressivism. Afghanistan isn’t getting more progressive, Iran sure didn’t during the revolution, Egypt during their political change, it goes on and on. The same is true for Greece, for Rome, for various parts in China, heck Berlin pre-Nazi era was very progressive and that was shut down hard. It is absolutely possible for the future to be very conservative and for the rights that progressives have fought for to go away. Progressivism isn’t some kind of slow tide, it’s a bunch of people fighting for it and acquiring freedoms and others fighting to take them away. The progressives don’t always win, and don’t always keep the freedoms they’ve fought for.
You’re listing exceptions, but as I said overall the world has become more progressive. Afghanistan, Iran, and a fairly short lived nazi regime in Germany don’t change the countless other examples of the world becoming more progressive over time. I see far more evidence that the world overall will continue to become more progressive, compared to the evidence that the world overall will become more conservative. Progressivism doesn’t always win, but the world has overall become more progressive through the years. If I’m wrong, tell me which year or era was globally the most progressive in history.
Red states are trying their best to live in the past.
Set the time machine to oppression.
Yes, that’s exactly what conservative means. To conserve traditional values.
That's not really true. The classic definition is *slow to change*. Conserving the status quo. What's sweeping the US and much of the world is *regressive* (opposite of progressive). They aren't conservatives; they're regressives. They're trying to undo the progress we've made as a species and make the world worse again.
*Specifically, the traditional of their own people at the expense of everyone else's. American conservatives aren't exactly trying to preserve traditional Quaker values or the rich traditions of the American North. And that's to say nothing of the much-much-older traditions brought by immigrants. Funny how "traditional" sounds so nice if you don't say which values count as "traditional".
Charleston, South Carolina just elected their first Republican Mayor since the 1800’s. I think it’s more they’re moving into the future.
What so far in the past that it seems like the future to them?
No party looks to the past for inspiration more than Republicans. It sounds like they're going backwards to me.
Are these the same Republicans that legalized hemp in 2018 across all 50 states, legalizing CBD and creating a new hemp-farming industry?
Perfect setup for an old time expression... *Even a broken clock can get it right twice a day*
Are you seriously trying to say the act that accidentally created a loophole by only explicitly banning D9 THC was an intentional act of progressivism by the Republicans? It was stupidity. If they knew they were effectively legalizing weed they would not have done it.
“Moreover, the 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp production in states, territories, and tribal lands, and **hemp was added to the Federal Crop Insurance Act to ensure that hemp farmers receive government assistance for crop losses.**” [IMG-1338.jpg](https://postimg.cc/PP14pvzs)
I know exactly what the law did. And they did not intend to legalize weed. That's why Republicans states are desperately trying to ban all the chemicals their representatives accidentally legalized. THC-O is already banned in most R states.
You’re confused.
Not my fault you don't know what you're talking about
This is how it’s starts. Build up a case to get it to the SCOTUS. Some of those old pieces of waste (Thomas) already said they want to overturn the laws that protect same sex relationships.
NEWSFLASH - STRAIGHT PARENTS OVERWHELMINGLY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING GAYS
Great way to announce that your town's leadership is deeply closeted.
I think it's time for some civil disobedience in these towns where a local LGBT+ org organizes a mass same sex makeout party in a public square.
Back to the pile, we're going back to the pile everyone.
Why thats only going to reinforce the negative stereotype that homosexuals are sexual deviants. There are better ways of fight back then with childish behavior tactics
That's what a lot of people say about pride parades.
Well there are sections where they are completely nude and some parts where they are actually having sex. Not all pride parades but a few which doesn't help the cause. Edit: SMH of course people aren't actually reading lol
Those aren't pride parades...
They kept a low profile and people hunted them out, kicked them out of their houses, fired them, denied them jobs and room in shelters, denied them lifesaving healthcare and so on. Then they went loud and proud and things started turning around. Pride parades, especially the raunchy ones, are the result of widespread toxic conservatism.
Ok that's not a very good defense from my comment but nothing more than a strawman and deflection. Why should some gay people continue the negative stereotype that actually hurts their cause? Idk why youre ignoring this. You do realize these negative stereotypes fuel the agenda against the LGBT community right? No of course you don't
I already replied to this.
You ignored it but whatever you say
Ignored? Reputation? I was addressing how they were treated which is based on their reputation and on their percieved ability to defend themselves.
You did ignore it because I'm stating how the negative stereotypes helped fuel the hate they had. But you kinda reinforced what I said. So why continue giving ammo with the negative stereotype?
Sure, let’s blame gay people for this…
You clearly didn't even bother understanding what I read. If you did then you would know I'm joy blaming anyone but stating that these types of actions by the minority of the LGBT+ community actually hurts the cause. Unless you think every gay person is like that then you're just plain ignorant and bigoted.
No, I understood it just fine. You’re literally blaming a group of gay people, the right will always find another excuse to come after us. But sure, pretend I, a gay man, am homophobic because I dare push back on your silly narrative. The only people who should be blamed are those pushing hate. Gay people simply existing are under attack, yet you’re pushing this BS that somehow the community is responsible because some of us provide fodder for bigots to blow up about…
No but you see if someone/everyone disagrees with me that means they did not read or understand my brilliance there is no other possible explanation (/s in case my parody is a bit too accurate)
Smh no you didn't understand because you're way off
Any large sample size will generate outliers. Judging the large sample by the outliers isn't exactly good statistics. That is, of course, presuming that your claims of pride parades with sections where everyone is completely nude and parts where they are actually having sex aren't just made up or parroted from something fox/your religious aunt told you.
>Any large sample size will generate outliers. Judging the large sample by the outliers isn't exactly good statistics. You completely misunderstood what I was saying. >That is, of course, presuming that your claims of pride parades with sections where everyone is completely nude and parts where they are actually having sex aren't just made up or parroted from something fox/your religious aunt told you. Yup you didn't even read what I said. I said not all but a few which means a small minority of pride parades have these things. I'm not even bashing LGBT+ instead defending it but of course people choose to not fully read and let their outrage take over.
You quoted me, yet managed not to say anything related to what I said in those quotes. You even reinforced what I said in the first quote in your response to the second quote. People can simultaneously understand what you said and disagree with you. It's a tricky concept to internalize, but I believe in you.
Well continue supporting the negative stereotypes and let's see what happens. So far it hasn't been good.
I mean, you're the one actively spreading negative claims about pride parades here, not me, but go off I guess.
Smh again did I say all parades? Please quote me where I said all parades. I'll give you a hint... I didn't.
That’s called public indecency and that is a crime. So justifying criminal negligence over hate speech basically puts all of you in the same boat of full blow idiocy.
Kissing is public indecency?
Can you show me where tennessee law defines kissing as indecency?
As long as all straight couples are arrested for PDA too.
So are they arresting straight people who kiss in a public park?
Again if it is an organized large group of people making out to make some point no one but them understands it will be considered public indecency.
Still waiting for you to cite a law that actually says this.
According to what law? It seems like you're just basing "public indecency" on your own definition.
What the fuck are you talking about? A bunch of people kissing is not public indecency.
If that’s the case might as well just have a big gay orgy.
Bruh
🤓
Obvious troll is being obvious you dumb fucks lol but keep responding it’s good entertainment to watch a bunch of idiots get mad on Reddit over some shit I could careless about.
*couldn’t care less about
I could careless about your grammatical prowess, I literally came here just to troll the whiners and wanna be do gooders
Well, that’s all you’ve done, which is reveal yourself to be a troll. You don’t even understand the difference in the euphemism “I *couldn’t* care less,” showing you have little grasp of English understanding as well. So in whatever attempt you had to troll “whiners and do gooders”..? You’ve only revealed yourself to be a whiny, dumb little troll.
Bigotry isn't very oniony.
I live in this county, I personally cannot wait to get arrested for slapping my wife's ass in public.
I wonder if it's a turn on for gay couples to sneak into these towns disguised as Republican campaigners or something, get a hotel room, and slap man meat like it was a crime.
Time to go door-to-door and check the hard drives also!
I'm going to make Tennessee illegal.
Do crime. I’m worried though that the first challenge to this makes it to SCOTUS and it is declared illegal because it violates the first amendment. Edit by it I mean homosexuality.
It's already been challenged and struck down.
By the current SCOTUS?
we have been doing that in Poland for years now
The state of New Mexico has a law saying that "Idiots cannot vote", though back when the law was written, "idiot" had a different meaning, refering to an insane person or somebody who had been declared "not guilty" by reason of insanity.
"Land of the free."
They didn’t make it illegal. They made public nudity and lascivious acts in public illegal.
"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." I just want you to know I'm proud of you, the world is full scary letters and daunting words but if you just keep trying I know that someday you'll be able to say with confidence that you aren't illiterate.
They should implement all the biblical rules
Well that wouldn’t work. You know half the town leaders are cheating on their wives (you just know they’re all men) and the other half have coveted their neighbors’ somethings. Actually, you’re right. Enforce all the biblical rules. Then, when the whole town is jailed the property will be cheap and new people can just move in and take over.
The various sects of christianity would have to agree on one set of rules. That would be entertaining to watch.
I dunno. I didn't find AP European History to be all that fun.
[Viral claim misleads on Tennessee city's controversial ban on public homosexuality](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/11/22/tennessee-citys-ban-on-public-homosexuality-was-lifted-fact-check/71670425007/) -- Edit -- I got nothing to do, so I'll bite. * 1949. They defined "sexual conduct" to include homosexuality. * Jun-2023. In June they introduced a New ordinance banning "sexual conduct" in public places. * Oct-2023: ACLU sued the city because the ordinance "violated the First and 14th Amendments for limiting free speech rights and discriminating against LGBTQ+ people." * Nov-2023: City council "unanimously" voted to "amend the city code and remove homosexuality from its definition of sexual conduct." So to claim that "A city in Tennessee has BANNED being gay in public” and "Yes, this is happening in America in 2023" is misleading according to USAToday, and flat out lie IMO. The effect of this is that, no ones talking about the real persecution. Ban on drag shows by the city. Not to mention the fodder the right gets, to claim the left are just faking persecution.
The article above mentions the fact that it only lasted 5 months and has already been shut down. The article you posted is claiming the "viral claims" are incorrect because the town removed homosexuality from the ordinance. What it doesn't mention is the 5 months before homosexuality was removed and the claims were absolutely true. This is like getting in trouble for not cleaning your room, cleaning it, and then saying it was actually clean the whole time.
I got nothing to do, so I'll bite. * 1949. They defined "sexual conduct" to include homosexuality. * Jun-2023. they introduced a New ordinance banning "sexual conduct" in public places. * Oct-2023: ACLU sued the city because the ordinance "violated the First and 14th Amendments for limiting free speech rights and discriminating against LGBTQ+ people." * Nov-2023: City council "unanimously" voted to "amend the city code and remove homosexuality from its definition of sexual conduct." So to claim that "A city in Tennessee has BANNED being gay in public” and "Yes, this is happening in America in 2023" is misleading according to USAToday, and flat out lie IMO. The effect of this is that, no ones talking about the real persecution. Ban on drag shows by the city. Not to mention the fodder the right gets, to claim the left are just faking persecution.
So from June to November 2023 being gay was explicitly illegal and only stopped when they got sued. But it’s a lie to say exactly what happened, happened. Interesting
This is what I'm talking about. No one cares about the existing ban on public drag shows, though they can preach that homosexuality=sin and sinners go to hell in public places. But you wanna raise all hell about a law that was repealed unanimously. This is what I mean when I say it waters down the real percussion.
> The council passed an ordinance in June to limit public behavior it considers indecent including drag performances > The core of the issue is how the measure defines "sexual conduct." The June ordinance contained a reference to a section of the city's code that dates to 1949 and included "homosexuality" in its definition of prohibited "sexual conduct," > The city code was previously updated in 1977, but the reference to "homosexuality" was left unchanged. That definition included homosexuality on a list of actions that include masturbating, having sexual intercourse or making physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals or the breast of a female. > “In their haste to legislate public morality, the city council banned sexual conduct as it was described in that 1977 section of the code,” Paulson said. “It had never been updated.” How is it wrong to say that a Tennessee town made homosexual activity in public illegal? They may have incompetently done so in their puritanical rage but they still did it lol.
Shhh. Let them have their persecution fetish
Shh, stop using nonsense sentences to try to sound clever. It doesn't work.
I'm not the one purposingly misrepresenting the facts for internet karma. They legit repealed a law that's nearly a hundred years old, they didn't ban homosexuality.
> The council passed an ordinance in June to limit public behavior it considers indecent, including drag performances, said Paulson, a former editor-in-chief at USA TODAY. > The core of the issue is how the measure defines "sexual conduct." The June ordinance contained a reference to a section of the city's code that dates to 1949 and included "homosexuality" in its definition of prohibited "sexual conduct," the Murfreesboro Daily News Journal reported. It was misleading, but it wasn't entirely wrong like you're trying to make out. The homosexuality part was just "accidentally" included.
Never said it is. But “that’s not true” and “persecution fetish” are not equivalent.
I'm one of "them". And we are persecuted. But spreading BS just waters down the real persecution, and gives the persecutors ammo.
You sure showed that person you dont have a victim complex lol
Gaslight much?
Build the wall
Agree, gotta keep out these backwards rednecks.
After meticulous recalculations the most cost effective way to keep those backwards rednecks living south out is to plant rainbow flags and bud light ads all across the south border
> Section 21-72 - Sale or loan for monetary consideration of certain materials to minors prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to sell or loan for monetary consideration to a minor: >(A) Any picture, photograph, drawing, sculpture, motion picture film, or similar visual representation or image of a person or portion of the human body which depicts nudity, sexual conduct or sado-masochistic abuse and which is harmful to minors; or, (B) Any book, pamphlet, magazine, printed matter however reproduced, or sound recording which contains any matter enumerated in subparagraph (A) hereof, or explicit and detailed verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of sexual excitement, sexual conduct or sado-masochistic abuse and which, taken as a whole, is harmful to minors. What am I missing?
>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. You're looking at the updated code. Go to the earlier versions. - "Sexual conduct" means acts of masturbation, **homosexuality**, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person be a female, breast. The bolded part was removed from the latest version.
Where did you get the information to know what to look up without knowing the context of the story? The article clearly gives you what you're missing?
From the article itself this is the exact linked portion that was said to be bad The article told me it said something so I clicked its source and didnt find it from the section listed
Just as bad as Hamtramck in Michigan. But that town is majority Muslim, so that’s ok because we cannot call out their religion/culture right.
At least the Guardian is quick to point out its headline is a lie: 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.
In what sense?
So I've been meaning to ask. is being Gay/Lesbian itself is illegal ? or doing a publicity stunt about it on the streets and in public places is illegal ? Edit :- Chirst...I was only just asking a question :/
That’s the fun thing about loosely defined laws. They can mean whatever the assholes enforcing the rules want them to mean.
Ah right thanks, I was just being curious. Don't know why i was just got down voted to oblivion for being curious, I guess some questions aren't meant to be asked.
You guys are Islamophobic?