Disaster Pedophiles are about to become a protected class in Minnesota - A transgender representative in Minnesota has introduced a bill that will remove the exclusion of pedophiles from the protected class of “sexual orientation.”

1682535830388.png1682535841306.png

What if I told you that a bill in the Minnesota Legislature is changing the definition of “sexual orientation” to include pedophilia?

That’s crazy, right? Who thinks pedophiles should be a protected class?

The authors of this bill which is progressing through the Minnesota State Legislature, that’s who.

The bill amends the provisions in Minnesota law that created sexual orientation as a protected class, meaning that discrimination of any kind based upon sexual orientation is illegal in the state. It’s been around for a long time, unsurprisingly, and like all such provisions, it encourages mischief such as lawsuits, quotas, DEI initiatives, etc. They also undermine the right to free association.

There is a carve-out for some non-profits, but otherwise, it applies to everything and everybody. Nothing shocking, of course. This sort of thing is common now. Nobody has the right to free association in America anymore.

Well here in the great state of Minnesota we are about to expand the definition of “sexual orientation,” and in the process, the great minds of the Democrat majority in the House of Representatives have decided to remove a provision that excluded pedophilia as a legitimate sexual orientation.

No, I am not kidding. Pedophilia is about to be legitimized. Not legalized–yet. But discrimination against pedophiles will now be prohibited if this bill becomes a law.

Most of the controversy surrounding the bill has been the provisions related to gender identity, putting our “human rights” law into something more in line with the contemporary mores of the Left. All the gender gobbledygook will be legally affirmed, and of course, anybody who wants to opt out of affirming crazy people will be turned into targets of lawsuits and harassment.

But the pedophilia provision should be getting more attention than that.

Striking the current law a provision that carved out pedophilia from the definition of sexual orientation is a radical move, and not getting the attention that it deserves.

Pedophiles will become a protected class. A PROTECTED CLASS! They will get the same legal protections against discrimination as gays and lesbians and be lumped into the same legal category.

You will be subject to lawsuits if you discriminate against pedophiles. You have to hire them, house them, and serve them in your restaurant regardless of your objection to their evil desires. They will have more rights than you. Because they are pedophiles.

Gays Against Groomers, call your office!

Lots of normal people are blissfully unaware of the Leftist agenda to groom children. It sounds like a conspiracy theory because, to be clear, it is too evil to contemplate. How can our neighbors, our elected officials, and our educators be monsters? It is inconceivable! Conservatives must be crazy liars.

But there it is, in black and white. Again. The agenda moves forward.

Minnesota and other Blue states are rushing headlong to pass bills like these both because Leftists believe in this, and their current grasp on power is allowing them to pass every insane idea that pops into their minds.

It is happening here. It is happening now. And the next stop is going to be explicitly legalizing pedophilia.

Once the Rubicon of declaring children mature enough to make lifetime medical decisions at ages as young as 8 it makes no sense to assert that they aren’t mature enough to engage in “consensual” relationships. If you can get permission from a child to sterilize and mutilate them, why stop there? They have been essentially declared adults in sexual matters.

Go read the bill. Look at the list of authors. It is still a growing list, too. It has had its “second reading,” which means it can appear on the floor for a vote at any time.

1682535914414.png

Authors (17)​

17 Authors and the list is still growing. This isn’t accidental–removing the exception of pedophilia that would allow for discrimination against pedophiles is in the bill’s description:
Gender identity separate definition created, and human rights act sections removed that allow for discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The Democrat Party is becoming the party of sexual groomers. It really is that simple.

https://hotair.com/david-strom/2023...become-a-protected-class-in-minnesota-n546242 (Archive)

Bill: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/te...ssion=ls93&session_year=2023&session_number=0 (Archive)
 
Last edited:
She doesn't come off as someone that believes in anything. Either that, or she's actually just playing a bit as part of some master OPSEC plan that prevents even her personality from being connected between social media accounts.


No, see, they're only predisposed to go after "bad boys" when they're ovulating, and only as short term partners-- not long term "husband material".

...yes, a woman tried to dispute the idea by arguing the above.

You do the math.
The only issue with their argument in that regard is often a "bad boy" won't just let a sexual partner go once they have them on a hook. This is where stockholm syndrome comes in and is relevant too.

There's also that old saying about women prefer respectable men, not "nice" men. You don't have to be bad, but you can't be boring and goody two shoes either.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Ser Prize
It's a very long comment in a convoluted conversation.

Here's the relevant bit:


Elsewhere, she cites a study about this:
So my assumption that it was some broad that's on my ignore list was correct.
I'd say the tendency to go towards shitty dudes is based upon personality and background rather than straight biology (if that even makes sense lol). I don't speak for everybody, but I can assure you I'm still dreaming about nerdy ethnic uwu goodboy manlets during ovulation.
Literally why all the terfs on here so bad at trying to be intellectual. I wonder if they're all involved in some quack pseudoscience mlm scheme like essential oils.
 
She doesn't come off as someone that believes in anything. Either that, or she's actually just playing a bit as part of some master OPSEC plan that prevents even her personality from being connected between social media accounts.


No, see, they're only predisposed to go after "bad boys" when they're ovulating, and only as short term partners-- not long term "husband material".

...yes, a woman tried to dispute the idea by arguing the above.

You do the math.
That sounds like one of those shitty redpill comics that the incels take as gospel truth.
nsfw-redpill-comics-an-unhealthy-obsession-with-chads-dick-v0-4byhkimbth4a1.jpg
As much as people make fun of incels, they do bring up a fair point or two at least occasionally.

By the way, one of the funniest "internet journalist" articles I ever seen claims that higher testosterone will turn you into a racist or something.

Wait, what!? 🤨
 
'About to'

'Introduced a bill'

Those two don't mean the same thing.
Doesn't matter. It shouldn't have been introduced at all. We went from "bake the cake" in 2015 to "let us fuck your kids" today. It's bad enough Hollywood is filled with these degenerates; we DO NOT need any kind of laws justifying them, regardless of which party signs it.
They tend to zip it and hunker down if I snap at them. As much as I enjoy smacking at them, my time and energy aren't worth actually debating broads
Luckily, you have all your youth to be devoted to stamping down pedophilia.
Hitler did have a bunch of women simps. I wish I remembered her name, but there was this one Nazi lady who named all six of her children names starting with H for Hitler. She ended up killing them all. So yeah, I feel like that describes some of the users on here pretty well.
Wait, didn't that scenario sort of happen in It's Always Sunny?
Hitler had female fans because he expanded maternity leave and granted tax breaks to new parents. 25% off home loans for every new kid. Pretty solid deal regardless of Mein Kampf.
I'd say the tendency to go towards shitty dudes is based upon personality and background rather than straight biology (if that even makes sense lol). I don't speak for everybody, but I can assure you I'm still dreaming about nerdy ethnic uwu goodboy manlets during ovulation. Literally why all the terfs on here so bad at trying to be intellectual. I wonder if they're all involved in some quack pseudoscience mlm scheme like essential oils.
You're referring to Dark Triad personality traits. The bit about the ovulation thing is true.
 
Can anyone tell me what is actually happening with this bill? This article seems a bit hyperbolic, and I don't know if I trust it.
While the article is arguably hyperbolic it is quite accurate in what they tried to do and I really don't know if you can be hyperbolic when saying "don't fuck kids." As far as I can tell an amendment was tabled to put back in the language ruling out pedos and it was, might be wrong though.
He's thrashing around whining about how mean and unfair the world is, but he doesn't even attempt to debunk the central concept- that his bill protects child rapists. And he's limited replies. Count down to him privating all his accounts. (Which pols should not be allowed to do.)
The replies have been limited on quite a few of them. I see the trans refugee state one is locked down now but given there's people in the replies saying "you're a man" I don't think it was protected initially.

Unfortunately the replies are useless. Every single one of them should be identical. Show the exact wording of the section of the law before and after the bill change along with the words "this person pushed a pro-pedo bill." While general mockery is funny this is an honest to goodness open advocate for child rape.
 
"Love is love"
I'm gonna start replying with something like "vengeance is righteous" when I see people say that shit unironically.

The thought of two closeted gay guys who don't like gay people having a relationship sounds hilarious.
It'd be a movie in the 90's, when you could make outrageous silly shit.
 
So my assumption that it was some broad that's on my ignore list was correct.
I'd say the tendency to go towards shitty dudes is based upon personality and background rather than straight biology (if that even makes sense lol). I don't speak for everybody, but I can assure you I'm still dreaming about nerdy ethnic uwu goodboy manlets during ovulation.
Literally why all the terfs on here so bad at trying to be intellectual. I wonder if they're all involved in some quack pseudoscience mlm scheme like essential oils.
Some day terfs will accept that they made this mess. But that day is not today, unfortunately.
 
I guess my biggest question is how many pedophiles would let others know they're one to begin with? Seems like the kind of thing you keep quiet unless you want the cops after you. Or the neighbors.

This isn't so much about protecting pedophiles per se as it is for sex offenders released from prison, since obviously being a convicted sex offender is a huge stigma and source of discrimination due to the nature of the crime. I don't know the exact extent that employers can inquire or investigate regarding criminal convictions in Minnesota.

I wouldn't be surprised to see them whittling away those reporting and residency requirements next.
 
The new bill tried to strike existing language. The republican amendment put it back in.

I'm aware, just replying the other guy who said that it might be the tranny forgetting to add clarifying language in the new version of the bill
 
I guess my biggest question is how many pedophiles would let others know they're one to begin with? Seems like the kind of thing you keep quiet unless you want the cops after you. Or the neighbors.

This isn't so much about protecting pedophiles per se as it is for sex offenders released from prison, since obviously being a convicted sex offender is a huge stigma and source of discrimination due to the nature of the crime. I don't know the exact extent that employers can inquire or investigate regarding criminal convictions in Minnesota.

I wouldn't be surprised to see them whittling away those reporting and residency requirements next.
They have a coded language, signs, and even things they'll say that identify each other. It's similar to modding community in games (I'm talking about those who cheat in PVP games not jst general modders) They have similar behaviors or statements they'll make that give each other away... It wouldn't be surprising if many of these groups intersect to grab or groom victims.

My belief is most mainstream pedos are one of these groups that have these catchphrases, signs, etc. While some wild card pedos are randomly out there never having become a part of these "secret" communities.
 

This is a bad thing, possibly.

Upper left hand corner: 04/17/23
This thread: 04/26/23
The document predates the story?

Line 1: amend H.F. No. 447
OP: HF 1655

Its modifying a different bill. This means there were at least two attempts to remove the text
"Sexual orientation" does not include a physical or sexual attachment to children by an adult.
From the law. That's bad both because they're trying to get it through in multiple bills, and because they did a bait and switch.

There was a relatively small bill that the story is about, and a bigger omnibus bill that includes at least some of the content of the small bill. People got all riled up about the small bill, but the politicians applied the fix to the big bill, and (I think?) pass the big bill that same day because hey, they fixed the thing everyone was complaining about, so the bill is good now right?

NO the bill that passed is longer than the bill people were complaining about! HF1655 was 14 pages long. HF447 is 51 pages long. What else got through? Hopefully nothing bad, but if there is something iffy, it's too late to fix it.

Also the troon version had 17 authors including the troon. The version that has already been passed has 2 authors, neither of which is the troon. The people responsible for whatever was passed have had their names laundered away.

I really hope I'm misunderstanding
Bill was passed as amended
I think that means "It passed in its amended form". If it means "The amendment passed but the bill is still under consideration" then this is still sneaky but not as bad as I assumed.

... Well, immediately after it "passed as amended" it was sent to the senate. Pass probably means what I assumed, but it still has to pass a second time.
 
Last edited:
Back