Bill Clinton signed the original Religious Freedom Restoration Act all the way back in 1993. The media and other liberal fascists are going crazy over Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Basically what the Religious Freedom Restoration Act does is allow business owners to refuse service that violates their religious beliefs. For example, if a bakery doesn’t want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, under this law, they wouldn’t have to. Muslims do this all the time with their halal markets, yet you ever hear a peep about this. Personally, if I had a chance too make money by baking a cake for a gay wedding, i’d do it. But I understand the religious angle too. What’s funny is, with all these liberal fascists going crazy over Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act they seem to have forgotten that Bill Clinton signed the exact same federal law into effect back in 1993.
Another amazing thing about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 is that the original bill was sponsored by none other than far left Democrat Chuck Schumer. Yes, the same Chuck Schumer who today is border-line communist and wants to decide what you can eat and drink (like Bloomberg.)
|
|---|
| Remember when Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993? |
The first RFRA was a 1993 federal law that was signed into law by Democratic president Bill Clinton. It unanimously passed the House of Representatives, where it was sponsored by then-congressman Chuck Schumer, and sailed through the Senate on a 97-3 vote.
The law reestablished a balancing test for courts to apply in religious liberty cases (a standard had been used by the Supreme Court for decades). RFRA allows a person’s free exercise of religion to be “substantially burdened” by a law only if the law furthers a “compelling governmental interest” in the “least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
So the law doesn’t say that a person making a religious claim will always win. In the years since RFRA has been on the books, sometimes the courts have ruled in favor of religious exemptions, but many other times they haven’t.