Over 1.3 million readers this year!

Gillette City Council debates ‘sexually oriented’ businesses during Jan. 21 license vote

Amy Neff, owner of Make Me Blush Boutique, stands before the council during its discussion on whether to issue a license to her "sexually oriented" business. (Ryan Lewallen/County 17)

GILLETTE, Wyo. — Beliefs clashed against city ordinance during the most recent Gillette City Council meeting with members entering a lengthy debate regarding a local business’s license request. 

The business in question, Make Me Blush Boutique, is a 2,000-square-foot novelty store on East 4th Street that has operated in Gillette for more than two years. The store falls under the city’s Chapter 10 ordinance defining a sexually oriented business for certain offerings, requiring Owner Amy Neff to seek a license from the council during its meeting on Jan. 21. 

While the council ultimately granted the license, the final vote came after a nearly half-hour discussion where one councilmember questioned the constitutionality of the license requirement. Another member referenced his religious beliefs and expressed a desire to postpone the issue until it was given due consideration. 

Councilmember Chris Smith asked why Neff’s business was singled out to seek a license and other businesses were not. His question pertained to Neff’s explanation that certain sexually oriented items are readily available at two other Gillette stores — Amanda’s Novelty Shop and Walmart.

According to City Attorney Sean Brown, Walmart doesn’t need a license to sell sexually oriented items because the amount of sales fitting that criteria is less than the required percentage for a business to be labeled as sexually oriented under current city ordinances. 

Councilmember Chris Smith listens to an explanation from City Attorney Sean Brown during a Gillette City Council meeting on Jan. 21. (Ryan Lewallen/County 17)

City Administrator Mike Cole added that city staff were unaware of the other novelty shop when they learned about Make Me Blush Boutique and initiated correspondence about the license requirement.

Smith said he was questioning the council’s sensibilities on the issue, stating his opinion that the council — by requiring Neff and not others to seek a license to operate more than two years after the store opened — was creating an unfair special class.  

“We’re infringing, in my opinion, on a person’s right to own and conduct a business, whether I agree with it or not,” Smith said, noting his desire to lessen government regulation on items that are not generally illegal for Gillette citizens to own. 

Councilmember Jim West asked whether Smith was implying they eliminate regulations on other items like cigarettes, alcohol and driver’s licenses. He pointed out that those items, while prohibited to certain individuals based on age, are not generally considered illegal.  

“I get where you’re coming from — limited regulation — but, I think we should have some regulation on things that are governed by the whole country,” West said, adding that the councilmembers are obligated as lawmakers to fall in with state and federal laws. 

Councilmember Jack Clary brought another perspective to the conversation, stating that he, as a Christian, didn’t have a good conscience voting on the issue at all because he didn’t believe it bore any positive weight in the community. 

“It’s more of a negative weight,” Clary said. “Why would we want to expose our kids to have the opportunity?” He added that curiosity gets the best of teenagers and that it’s impossible to prevent all of them from accessing sexually oriented merchandise.

Referencing the square footage of the business that houses sexually oriented inventory, roughly 500 square feet, Clary said that is too much for underage residents and that he couldn’t support it.  

Mayor Shay Lundvall listens to Neff explain her business during a council debate on “sexually oriented” businesses on Jan. 21. (Ryan Lewallen/County 17)

Mayor Shay Lundvall brought the discussion to a head by reminding the council of a point made by Brown — the conversation on whether to regulate sexually oriented businesses in the city was already had by the sitting council 30 years ago. He also said while the current council needed to vote on the license that night, that didn’t mean they couldn’t address any shortcomings with the ordinance down the road. 

Brown advised the council that they could turn back the clock on the issue and change the ordinance requiring sexually oriented businesses to have a license if that’s what they wanted. They could even arrange to reimburse Neff for the cost of the license if they chose to move away from regulation.  

After Councilmember Heidi Gross called for the question, the council ultimately voted 6–1 to award the license to Neff and enable her business to function per usual. They also approved an amendment requiring Neff to implement screening to keep underage residents from accessing sexually oriented items, a practice her business already has in place. 

After the vote, Neff said she didn’t expect the conversation to go the length that it did; she believed the council would simply vote to approve her license and move on. 

In response to a question regarding Clary’s position, Neff said that she understood where he was coming from. 

“I’ve had children myself,” she said. “My partner and I started this to educate so that it’s used appropriately and safely. We’re trying to change the taboo so it’s not so scary.”

Related