So if I'm in gender nonconforming clothes and I go to a karaoke bar to sing "Like a Virgin", that karaoke bar is automagically an adult business and subject to prosecution? Brilliant. What if I enter a singing competition and sing "I want your sex"? What if I just dance a racy jig inside Walmart in front of a few people? WalMart is an adult business?
So if I'm in gender nonconforming clothes and I go to a karaoke bar to sing "Like a Virgin", that karaoke bar is automagically an adult business and subject to prosecution? Brilliant. What if I enter a singing competition and sing "I want your sex"? What if I just dance a racy jig inside Walmart in front of a few people? WalMart is an adult business?
It seems like you're trying to give examples that might be found to "appeal to the prurient interest." Assuming that they are, although that also could be debated in any instance, I'd question whether wearing gender nonconforming clothes is "meant to exaggerate the gender identity of the performer’s opposite sex." But, again, it would come down to how that is interpreted, as I say in the piece. As for the Walmart part, I'm not certain under the bill that an entire business becomes an adult-oriented business if a person — without the agreement of the business — puts on what the bill determines to be a drag performance. It technically only says that the performance is an adult-oriented business (so, in this hypothetical, you).
Again, though, all of this goes to prove how confusing — and, hence, dangerous — this bill is and would be if passed.
So if I'm in gender nonconforming clothes and I go to a karaoke bar to sing "Like a Virgin", that karaoke bar is automagically an adult business and subject to prosecution? Brilliant. What if I enter a singing competition and sing "I want your sex"? What if I just dance a racy jig inside Walmart in front of a few people? WalMart is an adult business?
It seems like you're trying to give examples that might be found to "appeal to the prurient interest." Assuming that they are, although that also could be debated in any instance, I'd question whether wearing gender nonconforming clothes is "meant to exaggerate the gender identity of the performer’s opposite sex." But, again, it would come down to how that is interpreted, as I say in the piece. As for the Walmart part, I'm not certain under the bill that an entire business becomes an adult-oriented business if a person — without the agreement of the business — puts on what the bill determines to be a drag performance. It technically only says that the performance is an adult-oriented business (so, in this hypothetical, you).
Again, though, all of this goes to prove how confusing — and, hence, dangerous — this bill is and would be if passed.