this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
49 points (100.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7386 readers
283 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not sure who concluded that banning art with lgbtq+ themes would create constitutional problems, but a complete ban wouldn't create problems.
It's similar to religious displays during holidays. You have to let everyone who wants to be included. If you leave one out then you are discriminating with taxpayer money. So you save the tax payers money by not allowing anything at all. Now you don't need to worry that some lawyer with dollar signs in their eyes deciding to sue you. Because once that starts others will come. And no matter how flimsy their lawsuit it will still cost the town money.
And I'll add that towns/cities often lack the budget of states and private companies; they often have to be more judicious with their expenses. Plus, banning specifically art flies in the face of the constitutional right to freedom of expression. A universal ban on art to prevent LGBTQ art is no less unconstitutional.
Needless to say, this would turn ugly and costly if they decided to pursue it.
The wording in the article is public spaces, which generally includes private property. The exterior wall of a private business is treated as public space. Banning all murals on private buildings is an uphill battle too.