In recent years, eighteen states have adopted anti-LGBTQ+ legislation restricting course content addressing gender and sexuality, mandating that teachers inform administrators of students’ name/pronoun changes, and limiting gender-diverse students’ athletic participation. Sociologists have a longstanding interest in understanding how moral panics produce stigmatized identities, which can then become institutionalized through law. Previous research explores how teachers change their behavior in light of relevant political issues and that affirmative teaching environments where minority identities are discussed improve minority students’ educational outcomes. However, because of their novelty, little research exists on how restrictive laws related to gender and sexuality affect educators’ day-to-day actions. In this mixed methods study, I use both a survey experiment and in-depth interviews with secondary school teachers in two states that do not currently have such laws – New Jersey and Pennsylvania – to examine how they currently interact with LGBTQ+ content and manage interpersonal interactions related to gender and sexuality in their classrooms, as well as how these habits would change under these policies. While these policies would scarcely affect some teachers, they would strikingly affect others, shifting the behavior of some liberal and moderate teachers to resemble that of conservative teachers in their natural state, even if they vehemently disagree with anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. This research demonstrates that anti-LGBTQ+ legislation is likely to produce changes in teachers’ curricular coverage and interpersonal interactions in ways that not only negatively affect LGBTQ+ students but also the greater school community by inhibiting informative learning about diverse groups.