Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the LGBTQ Symbols Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates bill to ban LGBTQ flags on state property; amendment removes private right of action
Summary
Senate Bill 24-09, sponsored by Sen. Hensley, would bar display or recognition of LGBTQ flags or 'Pride' periods on state-owned property. Committee legal counsel removed a private right of action in the amendment; members split over free-speech effects and local control. The measure remained in committee after a tied recorded vote with some present not voting.
Sen. Hensley introduced Senate Bill 24-09, saying the bill would "prohibit the display of an LGBTQ flag or emblem on any property owned by the state or a political subdivision of the state or on the building or the grounds of any such building by any employee, volunteer, or agent of this state." He told the committee the provision is aimed at public buildings and public schools.
Committee counsel Josh Houston summarized the adopted amendment, saying: "The main provision that is changed in this is the removal of the private right of action that was found in subsection C on page 3. This replaces it with a reference to TCA 1-3-121, which would allow for declaratory or injunctive relief, but no damages." The amendment was offered to address concerns from universities about private litigation risk.
Opponents warned the bill is broad and could chill speech by employees and volunteers. One member argued the language would reach items such as emblems on personal cups or pins: "If I've got a pride emblem on my coffee cup, I can't carry that around," a speaker said, urging concern about overreach. Another senator framed the question as one of local autonomy and free-speech limits in state buildings, saying the state should be "neutral" inside government offices and wary of setting a precedent that would require allowing all political or extremist symbols.
Supporters framed the measure as limiting governmental endorsement of political or ideological symbols in public buildings. Debate centered on scope (whether off-duty conduct is covered), educational settings, and whether the statute's language is sufficiently narrow.
The chair put the matter to a recorded vote; the clerk announced the tally as three ayes, three noes and three present not voting, and the chair ruled the bill remains in committee.
The committee heard multiple floor-level concerns — legal, administrative and civil-rights implications — and legal services' explanation that the amendment removed a damages remedy but preserves declaratory or injunctive relief was a key change in the bill's posture going forward.
