Posted on 03/27/2015 7:31:54 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Hillary Clinton is very unhappy about Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act and on Thursday, she joined in the histrionics of the angry mobs who were complaining about the horrid, discriminatory law.
Sad this new Indiana law can happen in America today. We shouldn't discriminate against ppl bc of who they love #LGBT http://t.co/mDhpS18oEH
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) March 27, 2015
But Sean Davis, co-founder of The Federalist, pointed out that it was Hillary’s husband, then-President Clinton, who signed the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993.
I remember when your husband signed the federal version into law. RT @HillaryClinton Sad this new Indiana law can happen in America today.
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) March 27, 2015
#TBT When Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (with Schumer's help) http://t.co/m26f524Sp7 pic.twitter.com/bzdZGHd2pb
— The Federalist (@FDRLST) March 27, 2015
Davis then noted a whole litany of Bill Clinton policies that Hillary Clinton apparently finds problematic.
Hillary's dumped on NAFTA, DOMA, RFRA, welfare reform, balanced budget deal, cap. gains tax cut. Pretty much ever major WJC accomplishment.
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) March 27, 2015
With RFRA now under the bus, I have to ask: does @HillaryClinton support a single law her husband signed during his 8 years in the WH?
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) March 27, 2015
Just to set the record straight on Indiana’s RFRA, despite Hillary’s hysterics and the shrieks of the mobs calling for a boycott of the entire state (but not the other 30 states that have religious liberty protections), the new law does not actually discriminate against anyone. There’s not one word in the legislation that enshrines discrimination into Indiana law.
Gov. Mike Pence defended the RFRA in a statement after he signed it into law:
This bill is not about discrimination, and if I thought it legalized discrimination in any way in Indiana, I would have vetoed it. In fact, it does not even apply to disputes between private parties unless government action is involved. For more than twenty years, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act has never undermined our nation’s anti-discrimination laws, and it will not in Indiana.
Bill already claims he disagrees with thoseach policies.
Anyone that believes this decrepit evil hulk could even respond to anything in social media is an idiot, frankly.
There isn’t one real thing about her we’ve been led to believe. It’s all a concoction and hype.
Hillary has to throw Bill under the bus.
1. Many Democrats are more liberal than Bill, and Hillary wants to prove how liberal she is.
2. Hillary wants to show that she is independent of Bill, that her presidency would not really be a rerun of the Clinton administration.
3. Hillary wants to have her cake and eat it too. She wants to bring up their co-dependent co-presidency when it suits her, and reject connections to Bill when that suits her.
“Bill sends his regrets to all of you that he couldn’t be here with us today, but he had a date.”
Why does Hillary saying “America today” hit me as sickening?
bookmark
I was wondering about that gaudy brooch she has on her left shoulder. My private thought is that she stole that from the national archives that hold gifts given by foreign countries given to the President/First Lady during their tenure (they are not supposed to be kept by the individual).
....”The RFRA simply provides that state or local governments may not “substantially burden” a person’s right to exercise his religion unless there is a “compelling governmental interest” and the government must use the “least restrictive means” to further that interest. It also provides that a person who believes his religious liberty has been violated by a state or local government action may raise that as a claim or a defense in a judicial proceeding. It doesn’t say who would prevail in that proceeding, only that the individual can have his day in court....”
SO. How does this effect Muslims and their choice of sharia law?
RE: SO. How does this effect Muslims and their choice of sharia law?
This means Muslim taxi drivers can REJECT passengers. To many of them, DOGS are unclean animals, and I’ve seen cases where they reject blind passengers who have seeing eye dogs.
It does not say you can impose your will on others. If a person wants to apply Sharia to their own life, that’s their business.
Well, like I said on an earlier thread today, I think there is a connection between this and her “Tammy Wynette” comment on “60 Minutes” in 1992.
Y’know, if I were Bill, I’d steer clear of Hillary!.
She might need “sympathy votes” and what better way to round them up than to suddenly become a bereaved widow?
In the case of honor killing the government wins?
An honor killing is imposing your will on the victim.
Leftards who compare the sexual preferences of a Homo with the skin color of a black are so exclusively open minded that their brains have fallen out their butts and been flushed away.
As if any presstitute is gonna bring up the issue. Right...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.