It's Here: Minnesota Democrat Attempts to Include Pedophiles as a Protected Class

Looks like conservatives weren’t “conspiracy theorists” after all, and it’s notable that it was a trans activist Democrat lawmaker introduced this amendment to Minnesota’s Human Rights Act - this was always the endgame for this “movement” to anyone with a functioning brain.

The law also includes this caveat: “‘Sexual orientation’ does not include a physical or sexual attachment to children by an adult.” That language would be removed under Finke’s proposal.

To their credit, the Minnesota House did amend the bill after the substantial backlash, but the door is now officially cracked - expect progressives to continue pushing the Overton Window on this atrocity moving forward.

1 Like

Lawmakers are tired of hiding their names from lists like the Epstein book. It’s expensive, and stressful. They need to normalize this in order to protect themselves.

Their supporters are chomping at the bit to be a part of this.


So again, no. While kind of confusing, the intent of the proposed changes to the Minnesota Human Rights Act are not to include pedophiles as a protected class. The congressperson wants the wording, which states sexual orientation has nothing to do with pedophilia, removed because, in their opinion, it’s unnecessary and derivative.

My guess is that by removing the wording about “physical or sexual attachment to children by an adult”, opponents believe that this then means pedophiles are protected. Which isn’t the case. Laws against pedophilia are still on the Minnesota books.

IMO, removing the current text is unnecessary. I kinda understand why the congressperson wants to remove it, but, again, it seems unnecessary. This just gives opponents an opportunity to use the current conversation around trans individuals to oppose this change and twist it’s intent.


A subsequent law takes precedence over a prior law. Obviously, the clause was included to assure that this did not happen.

We have some very sick and twisted politicians in office. I believe an effort should be made to broaden stand your ground laws to include if a parent deems their children inharms way they can use all means to remove that danger.

1 Like

Thank you. I was sort of confused by what was happening but was thinking along similar lines.

I agree it is unnecessary and just provides fuel for her political opponents as the narrative will be that dems want to protect kiddy fiddlers.


It’s been coming for a while now, they just are having difficulty delivering it because of the push back.


What happened to Minnesota?

1 Like

There’s only one solution for a pedophile.


Conjecture. There’s zero justifiable reason to alter that specific line unless you’re attempting to normalize this. None. This won’t be the last such push either, given that the Democratic Party has shown zero interest in reigning in the crazed left. If they were serious, they would have expelled this lawmaker from their party immediately, it’s not like it would put their Minnesota majorities in any kind of jeopardy.

1 Like