Minnesota Senate Reinstates Pro Pedo Language in Public Safety Bill

Minnesota state representative Leigh Finke, who identifies as a transgender woman, introduced a bill seeking the removal of language that associates pedophilia with a person’s sexual orientation from the state’s Human Rights Act.

Finke’s Take Pride Act, introduced earlier this year, seeks to strike language stating pedophiles are not included in protections based on “sexual orientation.”

Subscribe to Florida Jolt Newsletter!

Finke’s bill counters the state’s Human Rights Act as the Minnesota representative claims the measure “updates outdated language that incorrectly ties pedophilia to a person’s sexual orientation.”

“Nothing in the bill changes or weakens any crimes against children or the state’s ability to prosecute those who break the law,” Finke said in a statement to Fox News Digital. “Of course, pedophilia is not a sexual orientation.”

Minnesota Democrats were forced to amend the bill and did so unanimously, reclassifying pedophilia as expressly not a protected sexual orientation.

Minnesota state representative Leigh Finke

The victory was temporary. The Minnesota Senate included the original language put forth by Finke, fully rejecting the House’s Niska Amendment, which passed unanimously 126-0 to maintain the state’s rejection of pedophilia (or in modern parlance, “minor attraction”), and is once again allowing minor-attracted people to get protection as a protected class, based on their sexual orientation.

The language does not legalize pedophilia. If you practice pedophilia and are caught, you can still be prosecuted. However, if you are discriminated against due to your avowed attraction to minors, you may have cause to sue.

The law does not say pedophiles are a protected class, but pedophilia is classified as a “paraphilia” and hence a sexual orientation. Human Rights law makes sexual orientation a protected category.

Join your fellow patriots and subscribe to our Youtube Channel.

Democrats claim the changes to the law are benign, but critics ask if so, why did they have to change the law? If the changes did what democrats claim, they wouldn’t need to change the law despite a unanimous vote in the House of Representatives.

Republicans are mad and tweeted their desire to have the Niska Amendment Restored.

Other stories you may want to read:

Houston Murder Suspect Snorting Cocaine as Police Arrest Him

[Video] Florida Woman Tries to Stab Deputy with Fix-a-Flat Tool

Share via
Share via
Thank you for sharing! Sign up for emails!
Making our country Great Again and keeping America First takes teamwork.

Subscribe to our newsletter, join our team of Patriots, and read real conservative news you can trust.

Invalid email address
Give it a try, you can unsubscribe anytime.
Send this to a friend