instruction:
In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: sexual-explicit and non-sexual-explicit. A comment is considered sexual-explicit if it explicitly portrays sexual matters.
question:
Comment: Trid sees nothing wrong with "No Dogs or Jews", "We don't serve Muslims" and so on. He supports bigotry. And no, that is NOT a straw man, but the clear and obvious implication of your " If either the buyer or the seller does not want to enter into that contract for whatever reason then I believe they have the right to refuse." Thank you for proving that your claim to being a Christian is a complete sham.
answer:
Non-sexual-explicit


question:
Comment: How do you keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill when there are guns everywhere?  This guy had been identfied and could not purchase a gun, yet he had an automatic assault rifle.
answer:
Non-sexual-explicit


question:
Comment: This is not Canada ...with a bunch of « Loyalists » Orangemen.  
There is no place for a bunch of Ku-Ku-Klowns in Canada.
In the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century an English 
three Canadians was a member of the white supremacist organization Anglo-Saxon, 
WASP equivalent to the United States ("White Anglo-Saxon Protestants"). 
Four members have been Prime Ministers of Canada, 
Sir John A. Macdonald (father of « Canadian Federation » of 1867 but not « Father of Canada » which is Sir Samuel de Champlain in 1608 ), 
Sir John Abbott, 
Sir Mackenzie Bowell (a past « Grand Master » (?)), 
and John Diefenbaker.  
In 1927 the “Orange” movement gave birth to a more intolerant and racist group, the Canadian Ku Klux Klan, which had its deepest roots in small towns in Saskatchewan because of the "yellow peril", but also because of the blacks...Jews...Catholics...
answer:

Non-sexual-explicit