Spartanburg Moves Forward on Hate Crimes Ordinance Amid Tense Debate
- CUBNSC
- Sep 23
- 5 min read
By Javar Juarez | CUBNSC | September 22, 2025
Spartanburg, S.C.- The Spartanburg City Council voted on the first reading of a hate crimes ordinance Monday night, after hearing nearly two hours of impassioned public testimony both in favor of and against the measure.
The ordinance, sponsored by the advocacy collective SIREN (Spartanburg Initiative for Racial Equity Now), would create a separate offense for intimidating or injuring someone based on race, ethnicity, or other protected categories. If passed, Spartanburg would join more than 20 other South Carolina municipalities—including Greenville, Charleston, and Columbia—that have adopted local hate crime protections. South Carolina remains one of only two states without a statewide hate crime law .
Spartanburg Hate Crimes Ordinance: Voices of Support
Supporters of the ordinance stressed both moral responsibility and constitutional legitimacy. Residents spoke of the lasting scars hate crimes leave on entire communities, while business leaders pointed out that such an ordinance signals safety and inclusivity — qualities vital for attracting investment and talent.
One SIREN board member even signed their testimony in both words and sign language, underscoring the importance of accessibility and dignity:
“Hate crimes are not just about violence. They are about intimidation, about making neighbors feel unsafe. Spartanburg must make clear that hate has no home here.”
Perhaps the most forceful counter to the ordinance’s critics came from local resident Antonio Tanner, who dismantled claims that hate crime laws are unconstitutional. He reminded the council of Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993), in which the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly upheld enhanced penalties for hate crimes.
“These laws do not violate the First Amendment,” Tanner argued. “That case established a precedent for using motives to enhance sentences for bias-motivated crimes.”
And when Rep. Josiah Magnuson sneered, “Have you ever heard of a love crime?” Tanner fired back with a history lesson:
“There is a Lovings law. Loving v. Virginia desegregated interracial marriages. So yes, that is a law.”
In that moment, Magnuson’s rhetorical flourish was exposed as hollow, while Tanner grounded the discussion in constitutional precedent and civil rights history.
Opposition from State Lawmakers
Two of Spartanburg County’s most MAGA-aligned lawmakers — Rep. Josiah Magnuson (R–Dist. 38) and Rep. Sarita L. Edgerton (R–Dist. 34) — traveled to city council to argue against the ordinance. Their testimony echoed national talking points designed to reframe political violence by portraying the left as the greater threat, despite overwhelming data showing otherwise.
Magnuson dismissed the very idea of hate crime laws:
“A hate crimes law by definition is unnecessary… unless you can tell me there’s some love crimes on the books, then the hate crime ordinance is unnecessary.”
He further claimed the ordinance would unfairly target conservatives:
“It’s targeted at those who agree with what the Bible says about sexual orientation and gender. You’re looking at the people preaching on the street, the potential Charlie Kirks — those would be the ones charged under this ordinance.”
Edgerton, meanwhile, leaned heavily on constitutional arguments:
First Amendment — “Vile, disgusting and even horrible name calling is protected speech in this country. The right to not be offended is not protected by the First Amendment.”
Double Jeopardy — “A person cannot be punished for the same offense multiple times… you can’t tack on a separate sentence because it’s a perceived hate crime.”
Equal Protection — “A hate crimes bill creates a class of people to be protected. The Constitution says we are all equal under the law.”
She went further, rejecting gender identity protections as illegitimate:
“Biological sex is the actual scientific term. You are male or female — XX or XY. Gender is a construct of our cultural society.”
And in one of the most incendiary lines of the evening, Edgerton likened the ordinance to authoritarian regimes:
“You can be sentenced to take re-education classes. Who decides what that is? This sounds like Communist Vietnam or Communist China to me, not the Free State of South Carolina and the beautiful city of Spartanburg.”
When placed side by side, the contrast was stark: Magnuson and Edgerton relied on slogans and mischaracterizations, while Tanner invoked Supreme Court precedent and civil rights history to firmly ground the ordinance’s legitimacy.
History at the Town Clock
During the same meeting, a second debate unfolded over the future of Spartanburg’s Town Clock.
Dr. Brenda Lee Pryce, former South Carolina House Representative and longtime Spartanburg leader, delivered a pointed reminder of the clock’s origins. Once known as the “whipping clock,” it was historically used to enforce curfews on enslaved African Americans, with brutal lashings as punishment for violations. Pryce urged council to preserve the truthful history of the landmark if it is to remain standing.
Her testimony connected past racial terror to the present-day effort to pass a hate crimes ordinance, framing both as questions of whether Spartanburg is willing to face its history honestly.
A Climate of Extremism
The debate in Spartanburg comes amid a disturbing national backdrop. The Department of Justice’s own 2024 NIJ report—later scrubbed from its website—confirmed that white extremist violence remains the most significant domestic terror threat. Yet, many Republican officials continue to deny or downplay this reality.
Meanwhile, right-wing provocateurs like Laura Loomer have escalated racist attacks on Black women in public life. Loomer recently referred to Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett as a “ghetto Black bitch,” amplifying the very culture of hatred and dehumanization local hate crime ordinances are meant to confront.
The Path Ahead
By moving forward with this ordinance, Spartanburg has placed itself at the center of a statewide fight. Supporters insist the ordinance is about dignity, safety, and sending a clear signal to marginalized communities that they are valued and protected. Opponents, however, remain entrenched in constitutional challenges and ideological attacks.
What is clear is that the city has taken a historic step. In the words of one supporter at the meeting: “Passing a hate crimes ordinance is more than a legal measure. It’s a statement of our values.”
As the ordinance advances to its next reading, the question remains whether Spartanburg will fully embrace a vision of justice that confronts both the wounds of its past and the threats of its present.
Comments