(February 4, 2015 at 4:47 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: If the issue is 'passion' or believability, Ham can hire under-employed actors. There is no reason that his for-profit venture should require some kind of creedal affirmation from its applicants.

A good actor will play his/her part in the interview and profess belief. Suppose Ham isn't allowed to have people sign statements of belief. Or Ham decides to get rid of the statements so he can get the tax rebate. Who do you think is going to get hired when the interviews are conducted? It will be people with crucifixes dangling from a neckless.

(February 4, 2015 at 4:57 pm)Heywood Wrote: Suppose I am hiring people to go out and collect signatures to get a pro gay marriage initiative on the ballot. Would it make sense to ask applicants if they were for or against gay marriage? You bet it would. You would want to hire the people who believe what you are selling over the people who are selling what you believe.....just to get a pay check.

You might want them to, but in the case of a for-profit business hiring for positions where their religious beliefs are NOT a BFOQ, what you would want in this instance is irrelevant, because that sort of discrimination is illegal.

(February 4, 2015 at 4:57 pm)Heywood Wrote: Now the ballot example would likely be a non profit and different laws apply but it drives home the point I am making.

No, it doesn't.

(February 4, 2015 at 4:57 pm)Heywood Wrote: Ham has a valid business reason to want to hire believers over non believers. He wants people to sell his product because they believe in it and not just because they want to collect a pay check.

What Ken Ham wants is wholly irrelevant in this case, because it appears that what Ken Ham wants is unlawful.

I'd like a kilo of the finest Colombian cocaine delivered to my door, but I ain't gonna get it.

(February 4, 2015 at 5:05 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: You might want them to, but in the case of a for-profit business hiring for positions where their religious beliefs are NOT a BFOQ, what you would want in this instance is irrelevant, because that sort of discrimination is illegal.

The court can decide if it is a Bonafide Occupational Qualification.....if Ham makes it an issue. I think Ham could make a good faith argument that it is.

(February 4, 2015 at 5:04 pm)Heywood Wrote: Who do you think is going to get hired when the interviews are conducted? It will be people with crucifixes dangling from a neckless.

You've got to admit, that would be a pretty neat trick.

(February 4, 2015 at 5:08 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(February 4, 2015 at 5:04 pm)Heywood Wrote: Who do you think is going to get hired when the interviews are conducted? It will be people with crucifixes dangling from a neckless.

You've got to admit, that would be a pretty neat trick.

I'm talking about dangley things....that are sometimes wooden.

(February 4, 2015 at 5:08 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(February 4, 2015 at 5:05 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: You might want them to, but in the case of a for-profit business hiring for positions where their religious beliefs are NOT a BFOQ, what you would want in this instance is irrelevant, because that sort of discrimination is illegal.

The court can decide if it is a Bonafide Occupational Qualification.....if Ham makes it an issue. I think Ham could make a good faith argument that it is.

I have no doubt that he'll try to make that argument. I also have no doubt that a reasonable court would reject it. It remains to be seen whether the court in question is reasonable.

(February 4, 2015 at 5:10 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(February 4, 2015 at 5:08 pm)Tonus Wrote: You've got to admit, that would be a pretty neat trick.

I'm talking about dangley things....that are sometimes wooden.

Somehow I don't see Ham hiring a bunch of Catholics to work at his park. Or have Protestants embraced the crucifix and I didn't get the memo?

Now plain crosses, on the other hand . . .

(February 4, 2015 at 5:14 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:

(February 4, 2015 at 5:10 pm)Heywood Wrote: I'm talking about dangley things....that are sometimes wooden.

Somehow I don't see Ham hiring a bunch of Catholics to work at his park. Or have Protestants embraced the crucifix and I didn't get the memo?

Now plain crosses, on the other hand . . .

It's kind of irrelevant, really. Belief in Genesis-as-literal-truth (the brand of faithful Ham wants to hire) isn't anywhere near a universal belief amongst Christians.

(February 4, 2015 at 3:51 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(February 4, 2015 at 3:27 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: I did. Apologies. I meant Hobby Lobby.

Fair enough,

From what I understand, Ham is claiming that the state is treating the Ark Encounter differently because it is a religious organization. The position of the state is that they are not, that they would deny tax rebates to any organization which discriminates in hiring. The wrinkle is a law which Ham claims gives him the right to discriminate.

What law is that?

(February 4, 2015 at 3:51 pm)Heywood Wrote: Suppose Ham wasn't building a giant wooden ark but instead building the most awesomeist strip club on the planet.

I suppose he would be less likely to illegally discriminate based on religion in his hiring practices.

(February 4, 2015 at 3:51 pm)Heywood Wrote: Further suppose that he discriminated in the hiring of his dancers by stipulating he would only hire girls who are under 95 years old.

Why would he stipulate that? He should hire dancers based on looks and talent, there doesn't seem to be a practical need to screen older dancers in advance. But as far as I know, Kentucky doesn't have a law that prohibits age discrimination in hiring.

(February 4, 2015 at 3:51 pm)Heywood Wrote: He probably has a legal right to discriminate that way.

Probably. But if he stipulates 'no Jewish applicants', he's going to have a hard time.

(February 4, 2015 at 3:51 pm)Heywood Wrote: Does the state have the right to punish him by denying him access to the sales tax rebate program because he exercised his right to discriminate?

When did you establish that Ken Ham has a right to discriminate based on religion?