{"id":31559,"date":"2017-02-14T15:38:19","date_gmt":"2017-02-14T20:38:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sidebarforplaintiffs.naomifein.net\/?p=31559"},"modified":"2017-02-14T15:42:36","modified_gmt":"2017-02-14T20:42:36","slug":"the-god-problem-or-youre-not-going-to-a-valentines-day-dance-in-henryetta-oklahoma","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sidebarforplaintiffs.naomifein.net\/?p=31559","title":{"rendered":"The god problem, or You’re Not Going to a Valentine’s Day Dance in Henryetta, Oklahoma"},"content":{"rendered":"

What is this, Footloose?<\/em><\/p>\n

Yeah, sort of. And Kevin Underhill has picked up on it for LoweringTheBar.<\/p>\n

See, there’s a law in Henryetta, Oklahoma (you knew i<\/em>t would have to be Oklahoma, didn’t you, where many happy things come to a madcap end?) saying there can’t be a dance hall within 500 feet of a church.<\/p>\n

You don’t believe this, do you?<\/p>\n

Believe. And read on, to learn how this law and the one woman who insisted it be applied has totally fucked up Valentine’s Day in this one town.<\/p>\n

BTW, happy Valentine’s Day to those of us who don’t live in Henryetta, Oklahoma.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

Lowering the Bar<\/h1>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n

Congratulations, Lady Who Shut Down Dance by Citing Obscure Law<\/em><\/h2>\n

Feb 13, 2017 05:30 am | Kevin<\/em><\/h4>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>A\u00a0Valentine\u2019s Day dance\u00a0had been planned for last Saturday night in Henryetta, Oklahoma, but that was cancelled thanks to the good work of\u00a0Robbie Kinney, the\u00a0woman who called attention to a\u00a0city ordinance precluding\u00a0\u201cpublic dance halls\u201d\u00a0within 500 feet of a church<\/a>. Rosie LaVon\u2019s, the site where the alleged criminal conspirators had planned to meet in order to\u00a0\u201cdance\u201d and God knows what else, is only 300 feet from the nearby Church of Christ.<\/em><\/p>\n

After Kinney blew the whistle, the organizer\u00a0decided to cancel, despite something less than overwhelming support for Kinney\u2019s position.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cOther than her,\u201d said Joni Insabella, who owns the venue, \u201cnobody objected, not even the church.\u201d Then who cares what Kinney thinks? Insabella\u2019s husband, apparently, who she said advised her to cancel the dance. Why would he advise that? \u201cHe\u2019s the city attorney,\u201d she said, \u201cand he swore an oath to uphold the law.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Kinney, too, insisted the letter of the law had to be enforced. \u201cI\u2019m sorry,\u201d she told NBC, \u201cbut the law is the law. Law enforcement does not have the right to pick and choose which laws they are going to enforce, no matter how ridiculous they are.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

She was neither sorry nor correct.<\/em><\/p>\n

First, we should look at the law itself. Does it really preclude dancing\u00a0within 500 feet of a church,\u00a0or is this one of those made-up stories of which so many dumb-law books other than\u00a0 The Emergency Sasquatch Ordinance<\/a> are filled? No, this one\u2019s real, although\u00a0it targets dance\u00a0halls, not the dancing itself.<\/em><\/p>\n

Section 9-403 of the town ordinances says \u201cNo public dance hall shall be permitted where the same is located within 500 feet of any church or public school.\u201d What\u2019s a \u201cpublic dance hall\u201d? Any place where a \u201cpublic dance\u201d is held (as well as \u201call adjoining rooms, hallways or other appurtenances,\u201d so don\u2019t try dancing there either). Okay, so what\u2019s\u00a0\u00a0a \u201cpublic dance\u201d? That, says\u00a0section 9-401, is any dance \u201cto which the public generally may obtain admission,\u201d as opposed to one where admission is \u201cbased upon personal selection or invitation.\u201d Just to make clear that these private dances are permitted,\u00a0another section specifically exempts them from the law.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

One of Henryetta\u2019s many dance-hall exclusion zones<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Now, this\u00a0is not an anti-dancing ordinance or an effort to protect local churches from the sin radiated by people who dance. After all, it doesn\u2019t say \u201cno dancing shall be permitted within 500 feet of any church,\u201d so the Red Zone could be totally\u00a0packed with sweaty writhing dancers and this law wouldn\u2019t apply. The law aims to keep the zone clear of a particular kind of establishment, though it\u2019s probably more accurate to say it was intended\u00a0to shut down a particular establishment.\u00a0\u201cThis ordinance was put in place back in the 1970s when there was a troublesome dance bar on Main Street,\u201d the mayor said, \u201cand it\u2019s never been enforced.\u201d Except against the troublesome dance bar, I assume\u2014as you can see above,\u00a0the Church of Christ is almost exactly 500 feet from Main Street, so my guess is that\u2019s where said dance bar was located. Church and school protection, in other words, may just have been an excuse to get rid of a business they\u00a0didn\u2019t like. It\u00a0hasn\u2019t been enforced since then, the mayor\u00a0likely\u00a0meant.<\/em><\/p>\n

But wait. Whether it\u2019s been enforced in the past doesn\u2019t matter, at least according to Robbie Kinney. The law is the law, and it must be strictly enforced no matter how ridiculous. Right?<\/em><\/p>\n

No.<\/em><\/p>\n

For one thing, it\u2019s not always clear what the law\u00a0<\/em>is. Laws are written by people, and some of those people aren\u2019t very good at it.\u00a0Like, possibly, whoever\u00a0wrote section 9-405, \u201cAttendance by Minors.\u201d That section first makes it unlawful to allow any person\u00a0under the age of 14 to attend a public dance. The next sentence says \u201c[i]t is\u00a0lawful for any person under the age of\u00a018\u2033 to attend, \u201cunless such person be in company with and attended by a parent or guardian.\u201d Emphasis added. Apparently, somebody wanted to make sure 15- to 17-year-olds were not accompanied by a parent or guardian at public dances? Seems a little creepy, but the law\u2019s the law. Or maybe sometimes it isn\u2019t?<\/em><\/p>\n

Section 10-413 makes it unlawful \u201cfor any person to be about in the immediate vicinity where a person or persons are gambling\u2026.\u201d Is it constitutional to\u00a0punish someone just for being\u00a0near an illegal activity? Don\u2019t think so. It sure\u00a0isn\u2019t constitutional to punish someone just for being \u201cdisrespectful\u201d to a police officer, or to \u201cuse abusive or indecent language toward or about any such officer\u2026.\u201d (10-610). The\u00a0main\u00a0point of the First Amendment was to protect the right to tell a\u00a0government agent to go f*** himself (or words to that effect), wasn\u2019t it? So this won\u2019t do. Also unconstitutional, and maybe unsurprising, is the ban on\u00a0\u201cimmodest dancing\u201d at public dances (9-410). The ordinance uses the terms\u00a0\u201cindecent or vulgar,\u201d but these too are undefined. It\u2019s apparently up to the Chief of Police to decide what dancing is acceptable, and that always goes well. The \u201cinsulting signs or language\u201d ordinance (10-302) also seems to be not very\u00a0enforceable.<\/em><\/p>\n

Weekend funerals are illegal in Henryetta, unless it\u2019s an\u00a0emergency (11-312(B)). It\u2019s unlawful for any person to\u00a0play on the sidewalks unless specifically authorized by ordinance\u00a0(14-204). It\u2019s also unlawful to cross the street under any circumstances unless your path is \u201cat right angles to the curb\u201d (15-1004). Since the law must be enforced as written, I assume no deviation from 90 degrees will be tolerated.<\/em><\/p>\n

The\u00a0point, of course, is that some common sense is often\u00a0required when interpreting laws, and people should use it; and also law enforcement\u00a0does have an enormous amount of discretion to \u201cpick and choose\u201d what laws they are going to enforce. That discretion can certainly be misused, but the risk is pretty low if they\u2019re choosing\u00a0not to enforce a law that\u2019s ridiculous or unconstitutional\u2014and there are an amazing number of those laws on the books, believe me.<\/em><\/p>\n

This one may not be around much longer, at least, because the mayor says they are likely to repeal it at the next city council meeting. Given her commitment to the letter of the law, maybe Kinney will get herself a protractor and start\u00a0checking pedestrians. The law\u2019s the law!<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

What is this, Footloose? Yeah, sort of. And Kevin Underhill has picked up on it for LoweringTheBar. See, there’s a law in Henryetta, Oklahoma (you knew it would have to be Oklahoma, didn’t you, where many happy things come to … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[632],"tags":[672],"class_list":["post-31559","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-the-god-problem","tag-the-god-problem-2"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t