Claim: Minnesota Democrats Open Door Wide To Using Sexuality As Criminal Defense

A new bill will expand the definition of sexual orientation under Minnesota's Human Rights Act. Critics say it will give pedophiles unjust legal protection.

The updated law doesn't limit the prosecution of sexually-based crimes against minors.

However, opponents contend it provides a level of protection to pedophiles that was previously unattainable.

The initial legislation in the Minnesota House of Representatives removed language prohibiting pedophiles from being recognized as a protected class. News of the development received considerable backlash.

Democrats in Saint Paul voted unanimously with Republicans to add an amendment stating that sexual attraction to children wouldn't be covered in the new Human Rights Act.

Yet the state house's reversal was short-lived. Democrats in the state senate overturned the lower chamber's 126-0 vote not to list pedophilia as a protected sexual orientation.

Senate Democrats defended the decision. Members of their caucus pointed out that sexual misconduct against children remains a crime in Minnesota.

What's changed is that pedophiles may take legal action if they feel they're being discriminated against based on their sexual attraction to children.

Hot Air blogger David Strom explains how this could affect ordinary Minnesotans:

However, if you are discriminated against due to your avowed attraction to minors–for instance if your landlord sees that you have a sex doll representing a child–you may have cause to sue. Similarly, a restaurant that threw you out for wearing a t-shirt expressing your love of having sex with children, the restaurant could not throw you out in the way they could eject a Nazi or homophobe.

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.

That's a long way of saying that pedophiles become a protected class, because, well, they do. That is why the original language exists in the law, to ensure that people can express their disgust with pedophilia without facing legal consequences.

The changes to the law are not benign, as the Democrats claim. If they did what Democrats claim then they wouldn't need to change the law. Their bizarre claim that they must, despite universal opposition as expressed by a unanimous vote in the House of Representatives, remove language banning pedophilia as protected by Human Rights Law, is ridiculous. If there would be no change in the law, they need not change the law. They insist they must remove “outdated” language.

READ NEXT: Marine Vigilante Surrenders To New York Authorities – As New Video Emerges