Yeah but it's okay, because Ken and his peeps are praying like mofos to get god involved. Of course, this means that...

...if they win the suit, god was on their side.
...if they lose the suit, god was on their side.
...if the suit is dismissed, god was on their side.
...if their victory is overturned on appeal, god was on their side.
...if their loss is overturned on appeal, god was on their side.

So there's no way he can lose!!!

When the state of Kentucky thinks you're crazy, you're batshit, fucking CRAZY!

I will now sue someone for not allowing me to be a bigot. How unfair - Muaaaahhhhhhh (cries)!

Here's a re-post of a comment I made on the article I linked (I'm Esquilax there too, for anyone else that posts on Patheos):

Quote:
You know, I think this is one of the few times when I'd feel safe speculating about the real beliefs of a high profile creationist, which isn't usually something I'd do because it's presumptuous. But I'm sure that Ken Ham doesn't believe a word of his stated position, and knows exactly what the problem is, but is lying his ass off. I believe this because his story has completely changed over the course of this whole thing.

When Dan Arel was first reporting on Ham's discriminatory practices over at his blog, Ham's response was that the entity doing the discriminating wasn't the Ark Encounter, it was Answers in Genesis itself, a non-profit entity for which such discrimination is fine. When Ham was called on this on a radio show, he hung up rather than addressing the issue. But now that actual consequences have been leveled against him, he now claims that he has, in his own words, a "statutory right" to discriminate; if he truly believes that he's legally okay then why tell such an obvious lie when he was first called on his practices, when it says in writing that the position with the discrimination was for the Ark Park? Why hide what he's doing if he thinks he's not doing anything wrong? And for that matter, which story is the true one: the line that's contradicted in official AiG writing, or the one he's using now?

It's so clear what's really going on that Ham's transparent complaints don't hold any water; when it was only a few atheists pointing out his wrongdoing he felt he could just lie about it and dismiss the whole story out of hand. Only now, when the government has gotten involved and real consequences have come his way does he see fit to even acknowledge what's going on. He knew what he was doing was wrong, that's why he tried to hide it, and now that he can't just sweep it under the rug he's trying to re-contextualize the whole narrative so that he's the victim. I usually wouldn't do this, but Ken Ham is lying, and he knows it.

I love it when creationists get caught in their own lies, don't you?

I love it when any charlatan gets caught in his own lies, especially charlatans the likes of Ken Ham. He's particularly vile and dishonest.

Will Citizens United have any bearing on this decision? Now that corporations are people and can hold closely held beliefs, can't the "Ark Encounter" be exempted?

It would be truly shitty if that clusterfuck of a decision affected even this.

Looking forward to seeing this get thrown out and Ham have to pay out all the legal fees.

(February 4, 2015 at 2:36 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Will Citizens United have any bearing on this decision? Now that corporations are people and can hold closely held beliefs, can't the "Ark Encounter" be exempted?

It would be truly shitty if that clusterfuck of a decision affected even this.

I can only hope not, but since America seems to have a cartoon legal system rather than a real one, I realize the case isn't as cut and dry as it seems to a sensible person. It's a good sign that the state government wasn't taking any of that crap when they first pulled AiG's tax rebates, though.

The other thing is that I don't see Ham's line playing as well to a judge as, say, Hobby Lobby's did: "I have a right to pick and choose which laws apply to me, and to discriminate against anyone I like," isn't really the kind of thing that judges, who apply the law, like to hear, and it's also kinda the only argument Ham can offer. If he insists that he has a right to discriminate that is enshrined in the law then... well, no he doesn't; the law is unambiguously against him. The only real option open to him is the idea that he gets to choose which laws apply to him, and I don't see a decision with that kind of precedent getting made and surviving appeal.

(February 4, 2015 at 2:36 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Will Citizens United have any bearing on this decision? Now that corporations are people and can hold closely held beliefs, can't the "Ark Encounter" be exempted?

It would be truly shitty if that clusterfuck of a decision affected even this.

You're conflating Citizens United with Hobby Lobby.