Hillary Clinton thinks State Dept. employees should have more protection — if they’re gay

Speaking today at the annual Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies event, Hillary Clinton stressed the importance of protecting LGBT State Department employees from danger — the danger of discrimination:

No. Discrimination is certainly unfortunate, but suffering is when men and women serving this country are left to die. What a shame that Clinton couldn’t bring herself to show this level of concern for the welfare of Ambassador Chris Stevens and his three fellow Americans butchered in Benghazi.

***

Related:

Sickening: Obama flanks self with coffins of 4 killed on his watch, Hillary blames free speech; Update: Rest in peace and God bless the marines.

Ghastly: Hillary Clinton laughs while discussing #Benghazigate, downplays emails, lies

Cable sent to Hillary Clinton warned Benghazi consulate couldn’t withstand attack; Citizens demand answers; Updated: Video added

Hillary Clinton makes plans to hit the bottle instead of hitting the Benghazi hearings

  • medicinewomantwo

    Hilliary, girl you ain’t going out on top. Just stop. It’s embarrassing.

  • Steve_J

    At least she’s trying to get more protection for somebody. The four Americans killed in Benghazi would have appreciated more protection as well.

    • Shawn Smith

      Actually it was all a big misunderstanding. Ambassador Stevens asked for more protection and, after a meeting with Sandra Fluke, Clinton sent him condoms.

  • JesLHW

    Some animals are more equal than others.

  • JimmyNeutron

    So that’s the issue, if the four in Benghazi had simply “come out” or wore panties or something then help would have been forthcoming and security would have been adequate. Awesome.

  • Bigeddie173

    I guess we are supposed to be thankful to Hillary Clinton for protecting a protected class of people, and we should just ignore the blood stains on her and the rest of Obama administrations hands. Out, damn’d spot! out, I say! Keep scrubbing babe, it will never disappear.

    • http://twitter.com/MoueLaMoue Moue La Moue (D)

      Nice, quote! It is too bad that they care more for who the employee is sleeping with, rather than whether or not they are actually qualified to I don’t know … do the job? I am going to go higher an Electrician now to put in my new sink line! Or something.

      • el_polacko

        being gay and qualified are not mutually exclusive. some of the most qualified people in every field also happen to be gay.

        • Shawn Smith

          Yes, and affirmative action *never ever* promotes a “favored class” over someone who is actually qualified.

  • SpinMeNot

    Personally, I’m all for sending a bunch of liberal progressive LBGT state department trogs off to the Middle East; lets reopen that Iranian Embassy …

    Crap on a cracker — lets talk about “qualifications” for State Department employees that impact the performance of their duties rather than their sexual preferences.

    Oh wait, sorry, this is the Obama Administration, job performance has no bearing on anything what-so-ever. My bad, sorry, I’ll go back to my corner now … sorry.

  • Peyton

    Any one else have an issue with the State Department promoting LGBT?

    • Shawn Smith

      Give them a few years, if Peter Singer and the recent Gawker article ( http://gawker.com/5941037 ) are any indication, future liberal state departments will be promoting bestiality and pedophilia as well.

      And if you think I’m wrong, that sounds exactly as ridiculous today as Hillary’s statement would have sounded 25 years ago. Ah, what glories await us through “progress”.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephanie-Warren/100001648091118 Stephanie Warren

    Of course. Cuz gays are just that special.

  • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

    So I guess “having more protection” means leaving them pretty much alone in a hub of Islamist fighters and promoting them as “the first openly homosexual Ambassador.”

    Yeah, that makes sense….to progressives.

  • el_polacko

    how do you translate “welcoming” to “more protection” ?? why it that, whenever somebody says something inclusive about gay citizens that we get this knee-jerk hysteria about so-called “special rights” from certain predictable quarters ? ….and we wonder why we’re losing the electorate…

    • Shawn Smith

      Because this is clearly another “affirmative action” type of thing and that’s how affirmative action works, by offering special privileges to a class that’s being “kept down” by “the Man”. (Nevermind that in Hollywood, academia, and apparently our federal courts, “the Man” is decidedly liberal and displays increasing favoritism towards these “protected classes” and increasingly open hostility towards the those evil Christian, heterosexual white men.)

  • Dan Thorpe

    If you ask me this is like this generations affirmative action. I have no problem with people that are gay but I am tired of this idea that they deserve preferential treatment. If the option to hire someone is based on the fact that they are gay is wrong. The qualifications for jobs SHOULD be whether of not they are qualified for the position, sexual preference is not a qualification.

  • Dan Thorpe

    If you ask me this is like this generations affirmative action. I have no problem with people that are gay but I am tired of this idea that they deserve preferential treatment. If the option to hire someone is based on the fact that they are gay is wrong. The qualifications for jobs SHOULD be whether of not they are qualified for the position, sexual preference is not a qualification.