RFRA: Hillary Clinton defended husband Bill's religious freedom law

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/flashback-hillary-clinton-defended-husband-bills-religious-freedom-law/article/2562505?utm_content=buffer29c3f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer?utm_content=buffer29c3f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Flashback: Hillary Clinton defended husband Bill's religious freedom law

                         

Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks to the reporters at United Nations headquarters, Tuesday, March 10, 2015. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

Hillary Clinton has criticized the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is modeled after a similar law passed by her husband, President Bill Clinton, in 1993.

"Sad this new Indiana law can happen in America today," Hillary tweeted on Mar. 26. "We shouldn't discriminate against ppl bc of who they love."

Hillary has been accused of being a hypocrite because of the law her husband signed, but last year, during an interview with Aspen Institute President Walter Isaacson at the Aspen Ideas Festival, the former secretary of state explained how Bill's law was fine, but everyone else is discriminating.

"Well, it was never, you know, and Ruth [Bader] Ginsburg points that out, this was the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, and the reason that was passed and Bill signed it in the '90s was because at that point there were legitimate cases of discrimination against religions," Hillary said. "You know, the people who wanted to build a church or a synagogue or a mosque in a community and they fit into the zoning but the community was saying we don't want one of those in our community, you know, that was blatant discrimination on the basis of religion."

Although the zoning issue is mentioned by Al Gore at the 1993 signing ceremony for RFRA, it was only one example given. Another pertained to violations of the religious exercise of people who have religious objections to autopsies, and that alone demonstrates the bill was not just about church buildings.

When asked by Isaacson if using the RFRA to allow businesses to act in accordance with their religious belief — as affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby decision last year — was a perversion of the law, Hillary responded: "This is certainly a use that no one foresaw. And Justice Ginsburg, you know, makes that very clear."

The differences between the Indiana RFRA and the federal one create a distinction without a difference, and actually fall along with the reasoning the Supreme Court gave in the Hobby Lobby decision. The original RFRA only protected individuals, but the Indiana law adds protections for corporations, prompting fears the law would be used to allow businesses to discriminate against gay persons.

But supporters of the bill contend that is not the case, and that refusing to cater a gay wedding — an event for which the business owner might be religiously opposed — is not the same as refusing to bake a birthday cake or make a bouquet for a gay person.

"To work from the classic example, no one will win in court arguing that a devout Christian baker's religious freedom is being infringed if she must bake a cake for a gay person," the Washington Examiner editorial board wrote on Tuesday. "But it is a very different matter if the state compels the same Christian to bake for a same-sex wedding — forcing direct and formal participation in an event that stands for and celebrates something she believes to be wrong."

Sent from my iPhone