Minnesota State Rep. Leigh Finke (D-St. Paul) has introduced the “Take Pride Act” (HF 1655), a bill that could inadvertently pave the way for pedophiles to be treated as a protected class under the state’s Human Rights Act. The legislation has drawn sharp criticism from Republicans, who assert that the proposed changes are “disturbing and inexplicable.”
The Human Rights Act, enforced by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, prohibits discrimination in various areas, including employment, housing, public services, and education. The act’s definition of “orientation” excludes pedophiles, stating that it does not include a physical or inappropriate “attachment to children by an adult.” Finke’s bill, however, targets this particular language for removal.
Degenerates sexually attracted to children may soon enjoy special treatment as a protected class in the state of Minnesota on account of a new Democratic bill. So have all the conservatives left the state of Minnesota and this is what rules now? https://t.co/22sPZHOnbr
— DavidCD ⭐️🇺🇸⭐️ (@davidcd0418) April 27, 2023
Finke, the first transgender legislator in Minnesota House history, defends the measure, claiming that the current language falsely implies a connection between transgenderism and pedophilia. In a statement to Fox News Digital, Finke argued, “Of course, pedophilia is not a protected orientation. The language never should have been included in the statutory definition in the first place.”
Nonetheless, the potential consequences of removing this language are troubling. While existing laws addressing crimes against children remain unchanged, critics argue that the bill could indirectly enable pedophiles to be considered a protected class under the Human Rights Act.
State House Minority Leader Lisa Demuth (R) expressed her concern: “The Democrats’ decision to strike this language is disturbing and inexplicable.” In response, Republicans plan to introduce an amendment clarifying that adults with a physical or sensual attachment to children are not a protected class under the Human Rights Act. Demuth added, “We sincerely hope Democrats will join us in ensuring our children are protected.”
Besides the change in the definition of “orientation,” the “Take Pride Act” also introduces a definition for “gender identity.” The new definition reads, “‘Gender identity’ means a person’s inherent sense of being a man, woman, both, or neither. A person’s gender identity may or may not correspond to their assigned biological gender at birth or to their primary or secondary physical characteristics. A person’s gender identity is not necessarily visible to others.”
While Finke insists that the backlash over the measure is unwarranted, it is clear that the potential ramifications of this bill cannot be ignored. As Minnesota legislators continue to debate the “Take Pride Act,” it is crucial that ordinary residents demand they prioritize the safety and well-being of the state’s children above all else.
