Exactly, this is the issue! Like the indentured workers laws weren't against black people in theory because they weren't referenced implicitly in the bill. Still, 90% of indentured servant were black, and was seen by the ex-slaveowners (or any person with power in the South) as a permission to push black workers into "crimes" (like vagrancy and other dangerous crimes like not having a job or saying a profanity).

RAW doesn't really matter, not in the US at least, especially this kind of law which won't have any impact except maybe on school library (and that's an issue we can discuss this if you want, but if it bans the "guide to sexual zizi", which helped A LOT of shy preteens, including me, it should just die imo, especially when porn today is that much easier to access). The only thing this law does seems to be virtue-signalling "we don't like gays here, like you, people who vote for us".

This is how people outside the US understand this law. I mean, i've talked less than a week ago to an hungarian (i was in portugal, weird settings and all) who told us he wanted his president to pass the same "anti-gay in school law" to prevent children from "turning gay". So its not only opponents of this law that saw it this way, it is how it has been pitched to everyone.

What that law actually say is irrelevent here, don't you agree? It's how the average citizen perceive the law that matter, and if anti-LGBTQ people (mis)understand this law as a pass from the local government to beat up gays, it makes the state more dangerous. So to avoid for conferences.

So we basically agree