Thread by @xxclusionary

Tim Walz Signed a Bill Redefining the Term "Sexual Orientation" to INCLUDE PEDOPHILES.

🧵A Thread 🧵

1/x

On 02/13/2023, Leigh Finke, a trans identified male, Introduced H. F. No. 1655, which redefined "Sexual Orientation."

Link to the amendment:

In this amendment, Finke CROSSED OUT the section that expressly precluded pedophiles from falling under the definition of "Sexual orientation."

In the old bill, the definition "Sexual orientation" delineated which people were were protected under the Minnesota Human Rights Statute, making it a violation to discriminate against those falling under that definition. This old definition EXPLICITLY EXCLUDED pedophiles through the addition of this phrase to the definition: "Sexual orientation" does not include a physical 1.20 or sexual attachment to children by an adult.

The bill then passed the committee was adopted.
Link to Minutes:
Link to the video stream of the hearing:

The amendment to 2022 c 52 art 19 s 44, (yes, this includes the section crossing out the pedophile exclusion), is characterized by Finke in the committee hearing as "modernizing" the terminology to reflect more contemporary understandings of sexual orientation and gender.

They think including pedophiles under the umbrella of "Sexual orientation" reflects a "modern understanding of sexuality and gender."revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php…
house.mn.gov/Committees/min…
house.mn.gov/hjvid/93/896506

2/x

The most disturbing part of this bill, is that it went through MULTIPLE revisions, and in EVERY. SINGLE. REVISION., they kept the pedophile exclusion crossed out.

Link to the final changes to the bill:

Here is the final version of the bill that is LAW with the language TAKEN OUT:
revisor.mn.gov/laws/2023/0/52…
revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/…

3/x

These amendments were signed into law by Tim Walz, by virtue of their inclusion in the "Take Pride Act," which was an act included in the Judiciary and Public Safety bill.

As such, Tim Walz signed a bill into law that included an amendment that REMOVED the clause that excluded pedophiles from 2022 c 52 art 19 s 44.

Link to the Minnesota Department Human Rights announcement and list of things the bill included:

This bill included the Take Pride Act, which is where Finke's amendment, HF1655, the amendment that modified 2022 c 52 art 19 s 44 to exclude the section that excepted pedophiles from civil rights protections under the Minnesota human rights code.

To reiterate, Tim Walz signed a bill into law through which, removed the pedophile exclusion that excepted pedophiles from the civil rights protections that are afforded to those protected identities or classifications that fall under the definition "Sexual orientation."

This opens the door for the law to protect pedophilia as a "sexual orientation" under the Minnesota human rights legislation, especially when there is language in the bill expressly saying the provisions are to be construed "liberally."mn.gov/mdhr/news-comm…

4/x

For further clarification about this amendment, the "Sexual orientation" definition change was included in the HF 1655 amendment, which amended 2023 c 52 art 19 s 46-48, and passed into law by Tim Walz.

Here is the link that shows JUST the definitions, of which apply to 2023 c 52 art 19 Chapter 363A, and were passed in the 2023 legislative session, with the corresponding legislative history version highlighted for which the new "Sexual Orientation" definition corresponds:



Here is the link to the full text of the bill, which IS current law and includes the subsection 44 "Sexual orientation" definition amendment that was included in HF 1655. As a reminder, HF 1655 was part of the "Take Pride Act," which was signed into law by Tim Walz on May 30, 2023 per its inclusion in the Judiciary and Public Safety bill:

revisor.mn.gov/statutes/2023/…
revisor.mn.gov/laws/2023/0/52…
revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/…

5/x

Here is how the "Take Pride Act" and HF 1655 relate to Judiciary and Public Safety bill signed into law by Tim Walz.

The Judiciary and Public Safety bill is also named SF 2909.

Navigation Note: these screenshots were taken after clicking the "chronological" tab which is under the "Actions" subtitle.

The below photo, which can be found on the same webpage as the above (also under the "chronological" tab) includes the record of Tim Walz having signed it the bill into law.

Here is a link to page where you can see the list of actions:

As referred to above, SF 2909 (a.k.a. the Judiciary and Public Safety bill), includes the HF 1655 amendment, which is apart of the "Take Pride Act" introduced by Finke.

The below photo shows the page where you can access the entire text of the bill, which includes annotations whenever the legislators added or removed components of the bill. You can see the below bill name (SF 2909) matches the above bill name, also SF 2909, which is also known as SF 2909.

If you "control+F" on the above page using the term "subdivision 44," you will see the below revised text which is the revised definition of "Sexual orientation" that Leigh Finke proposed in his HF 1655 amendment.

Here is a link to the full annotated version of the bill:
revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php…
revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php…

6/x

This post is continuing from the last webpage mentioned (the full text annotated SF 2909 bill), as discussed above in 5/x, and is for those who still happen to be confused about how the amendment, the act, and the bill relate to each other.

I will use dates here to make it more obvious that the HF 1655 amendment included in the "Take Pride Act" introduced by Finke, is contained in the SF 2909 bill, a.k.a the Judiciary and Public Safety bill, which was signed by Tim Walz into law.

As shown below, the annotated full text of the SF 2909 bill, as mentioned and shown in 5/x, was published to the Office of the Revisor of Statutes' website on 05/31/2023 08:51am.

As previously mentioned in post 3/x, the announcement of the signing of the SF 2909 bill, aka the Judiciary and Public Safety bill (which was signed by Tim Walz on 05/19/2023), was announced on the Minnesota Dept. of Human Rights' website on 05/30/2023.

I will link to this website again for convenience:

So here we have demonstrated that the dates all match up.mn.gov/mdhr/news-comm…

7/x

It get's better y'all. They had around half a dozen organizations endorse the "Take Pride Act," which REMOVED the pedophile exclusion!!!

- The Girl Scouts
- The Minnesota Council of Nonprofits
- National Council of Jewish Women
- The Minnesota Catholic Conference

8/x

Since people are now accusing me of being “dishonest” and “intentionally misleading” for accidentally mixing up a single organization’s “nay” with another’s “yay” in post 7/x, let me clarify:

Thanks to your very *gracious* notification and your very *honest* characterizations of my supposed “maliciously intended deception,” I now humbly realize that I mistakenly included the Catholic organization’s “nay” by confusing it with another nonprofit’s “yay.”

The other three organizations are correctly identified as “yays,” so despite your suspicions, those characterizations are accurate.

I spent several hours sorting through 10,000 pages of PDFs and annotated code only to be accused of “intentional dishonesty” for accidentally mixing up one document out of thousands.

So, please accept my 1,000 prostrations and the sacrifice of my firstborn child as penance for this utterly unforgivable error.

9/x

Here is a video of Leigh Finke on ABC News yesterday discussing how integral and involved Tim Walz was in LGBTQ+ legislation, the “Trans Refuge Bill,” and through his collaboration with the “queer caucus.”

Also that last line is a lot creepier when you interpret it in lieu of the above developments: “[Tim Walz] wants Minnesota to be the best place to raise a family, and he knows that means all families.”

10/x

The following is an explanation of how this new definition, if interpreted to include pedophiles as a protected sexuality, would roughly interact with the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), existing federal and state laws pertaining to sexual offenses against children.

Obligatory Disclaimer: The following description is based on a hypothetical interpretation of Minnesota Human Rights Code 2023 c 52 art 19 s 44, wherein “sexual orientation” is interpreted to include adults sexually attracted to minors as a protected sexual orientation. This interpretation is hypothetical and for illustrative purposes only and does not reflect current legal standards or practices. I am publishing this solely for discussion. This is not legal advice. I am not your attorney, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by your reading or reliance on this content.

Minnesota Human Rights Code 2023 c 52 art 19 s 44

This section hypothetically redefines “sexual orientation” to include adults sexually attracted to minors as a protected class. This hypothetical interpretation would primarily affect civil protections in the following areas:

Application to Registered Offenders

Under current blackletter law, protections against discrimination based on a special class apply even if other characteristics, such as criminal history, are present. If the hypothetical redefinition of sexual orientation under Minnesota Human Rights Code 2023 c 52 art 19 s 44 were to include pedophiles, it could extend non-discrimination protections to registered sex offenders whose registration status arises from this protected class.

Thus, non-discrimination protections under the MHRA could apply to registered sex offenders if their registration status is a result of their membership in a protected class. This protection would not shield them from legal requirements like registration but would prevent discrimination in employment, housing, and other civil contexts.

11/x

Protections Under Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) Chapter 52

This section hypothetically redefines “sexual orientation” to include adults sexually attracted to minors as a protected class. This hypothetical interpretation would primarily affect civil protections in the following areas:

1. Employment (Minn. Stat. § 363A.08)

• It is an unfair discriminatory practice to refuse to hire, to discharge, or to discriminate in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of a person’s sexual orientation.

• Impact: Employers would be prohibited from discriminating against individuals based on this expanded definition of sexual orientation, meaning they could not refuse to hire or fire someone solely based on their sexual attraction to minors.

2. Housing (Minn. Stat. § 363A.09)

• It is an unfair discriminatory practice to refuse to sell, rent, or lease housing; to discriminate in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale, rental, or lease of housing; or to discriminate in the provision of services or facilities in connection with the sale, rental, or lease of housing because of a person’s sexual orientation.

• Impact: Landlords and property sellers would be prohibited from discriminating against individuals based on this expanded definition of sexual orientation in renting or selling housing.

3. Public Accommodations (Minn. Stat. § 363A.11)

• It is an unfair discriminatory practice to deny any person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation because of a person’s sexual orientation.

• Impact: Places of public accommodation, such as restaurants, hotels, and stores, would be required to provide services to individuals based on this expanded definition of sexual orientation.

4. Public Services (Minn. Stat. § 363A.12)

• It is an unfair discriminatory practice to discriminate against any person in the access to, admission to, full utilization of, or benefit from any public service because of a person’s sexual orientation.

• Impact: Public services, including public transportation and government services, would need to ensure non-discriminatory access based on this expanded definition of sexual orientation.

5. Education (Minn. Stat. § 363A.13)

• It is an unfair discriminatory practice for an educational institution to discriminate in the admission or access to, or in the treatment of, a student in any aspect of the institution’s program because of a person’s sexual orientation.

• Impact: Schools and educational institutions would be required to provide equal access and treatment to individuals based on this expanded definition of sexual orientation.

6. Credit (Minn. Stat. § 363A.16)

• It is an unfair discriminatory practice to discriminate in the granting of credit because of a person’s sexual orientation.

• Impact: Financial institutions would be prohibited from discriminating against individuals based on this expanded definition of sexual orientation in lending and credit services.

7. Business Discrimination (Minn. Stat. § 363A.17)

• It is an unfair discriminatory practice for a person engaged in a trade or business or in the provision of a service to discriminate in the provision of services because of a person’s sexual orientation.

• Impact: Businesses would be required to provide services without discrimination based on this expanded definition of sexual orientation.

12/x

A broader definition of sexual orientation under this new bill hypothetically would not apply to state or federal prosecution of pedophiles BUT it would make discrimination against them a civil violation and an actionable offense in terms of the"affected" individuals having a valid cause of action and their ability to receive civil damages.

18 U.S.C. § 2422: Coercion and Enticement (Federal)

Text of the Law:

This statute criminalizes knowingly persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent to engage in prostitution or any criminal sexual activity. It also criminalizes attempts to do so.

Relationship to the Protected Group:

•Civil Protections: The classification of pedophilia as a protected class under the Minnesota Human Rights Code would primarily affect civil matters, such as anti-discrimination protections in housing, employment, and public accommodations. However, these civil protections do not extend to shielding individuals from federal criminal prosecution.

•Federal Prosecution: Federal law, particularly 18 U.S.C. § 2422, would preempt state civil protections in cases involving interstate or international travel aimed at engaging in illegal sexual activities. This preemption is supported by the Commerce Clause, as highlighted in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).

•Non-Minor Specific: This statute applies broadly to any individual, not specifically targeting minors. Therefore, the federal government can prosecute individuals engaging in such activities irrespective of state-level civil protections.

State Law Analysis

Minnesota Statute § 609.342: Criminal Sexual Conduct in the First Degree

Text of the Law:

This statute criminalizes sexual penetration or sexual contact with a person under 13 years of age by an individual more than 36 months older.

Relationship to the Protected Group:

•Civil Protections vs. Criminal Conduct: While the hypothetical classification of pedophilia as a protected class under Minnesota’s Human Rights Code would grant civil protections against discrimination in areas such as employment and housing, it does not negate the enforceability of criminal laws. The conduct prohibited by Minn. Stat. § 609.342 remains criminal regardless of civil rights protections.

•Public Policy: Minnesota’s public policy, as reflected in its criminal statutes, prioritizes the protection of minors from sexual exploitation and abuse.

Minnesota Statute § 609.343: Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Second Degree

Text of the Law:

This statute criminalizes sexual contact without penetration with a minor.

Relationship to the Protected Group:

•Enforcement: The enforcement of Minn. Stat. § 609.343 would continue unaffected by any hypothetical civil rights protections.

•State vs. Civil Protections: Even if pedophilia were hypothetically classified as a protected sexual orientation under the state’s human rights code, such classification would not extend immunity from criminal prosecution for actions that violate state laws protecting minors.

13/x

14/x

The following include case law where Minnesota courts have interpreted statutes when an exclusion is removed.

A deliberate exclusion is generally accepted to be interpreted as an intent to INCLUDE. They KNEW what they were doing.

Here is the response I got from lexis.

Additionally, I provided a link to the list of caselaw cited in the response I got. I downloaded the 30+ citations generated from the query and uploaded them to drive so it can be accessible.

drive.google.com/file/d/1mjQlKu…

15/x

Why do you pathologically lie?

Is sophistry and deceit incidental to your politics or is it a necessary prerequisite for being a sociopathic ideologue?

Is this the type of ethics you’re teaching your law students to adhere to?

@JillHasday @NaomiCahn

Pathetic.

@JillHasday @NaomiCahn 16/x

The Community notes on the Musk Post is spreading false information using lies perpetuated by the above duplicitous “fact-checker” apparatus to spread said lies

There have now been TWO successful attempts to approve a note that contains false info

@JillHasday @NaomiCahn 17/x

Here is the second note that @CommunityNotes has approved that has spread blatantly false information.