Ken Ham files lawsuit against Kentucky

[Brian37]

Why should we be funding them anyway, religious or not, we shouldn't be giving freebies to the NFL either. If that idiot wants to build a theme park he should use his own money.

[Faith No More]

Regardless of Kentucky law, wouldn't receiving government incentives while simultaneously trying to claim the right to discriminate on religious grounds violate the separation of church and state established by federal law?

[Chas]

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.

I'm quite sure that many of them are neckless.

[Esquilax]

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.

Yes, I suspect a highly specific set of young earth creationist beliefs is integral to one's understanding of the technicalities of CAD programming.

Why should we be funding them anyway, religious or not, we shouldn't be giving freebies to the NFL either. If that idiot wants to build a theme park he should use his own money.

The funding Ham was going to receive was as part of a tourism incentive, where Ham claimed that he would be bringing in millions of tourists to the state, based on a predictive report that he hired a friend of his to make for him. Obvious conflict of interest aside, state investigators later wrote their own report, finding that Ham's cohorts had fudged the data hugely in an attempt to make the park look more palatable. Ham's response was to petulantly say "nuh uh!" and demand that the original report was the right one to use, because he said so.

As to funding the park with his own money, he can't: even with the donors he has, he's relying on the state incentives to build all but the most basic structures of the plans, calling the rest a second phase he'll be building with the state's money. That's why he's whining about this so hard: no tax breaks, no park worth a damn.

Regardless of Kentucky law, wouldn't receiving government incentives while simultaneously trying to claim the right to discriminate on religious grounds violate the separation of church and state established by federal law?

This is, I think, precisely the reason Ham got his funding pulled. And why any ruling by neutral judges will cause Ham to fail in his suit.

[kookookachoo]

We mustn't forget why Ham failed to get the exemption. It was due to those damnable atheists and their complaints about his ministry to the poor and starving of Africa, while looting them of as many diamonds as he can stuff up his ass. Oh wait, that's not Ham's ministry. Sorry, what was the question?

Seriously, this is quite the clusterfuck, but it's also a ploy to keep his name in lights as long as possible. Allowing him to immigrate here helps me see a point to the immigration policies that conservatives would like to impose upon the country. He was forced out of power in some kind of similar religious cult over in Australia, then turns up here to hoodwink the good people of our country.

I also kinda fail to see how the feds can force a state to give him the incentive, should he somehow overcome the odds against him in the suit. But I ain't no lawwwyer. I'm just an old coot with a headache.

[robvalue]

"Ken Ham sues reality for contradicting the bible. His secret weapon: a banana. No wait that's Ray Comfort. More at 11."

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

Now the ballot example would likely be a non profit and different laws apply but it drives home the point I am making. 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.

Great. Do it with your own money, and don't ask for my tax dollars.

kthxbai

[Heywood]

Regardless of Kentucky law, wouldn't receiving government incentives while simultaneously trying to claim the right to discriminate on religious grounds violate the separation of church and state established by federal law?

Presumably Mr Ham will be suing to protect his rights on the under federal government's Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Kentucky's version of that act. I don't know that Ham wins. I just don't think the case is a slam dunk for one side or the other.

They way I see this playing out is this. Ham sues and looses. He abandons his "statement of belief" requirement (after everyone is already hired) and reapplies for the rebate. Since he is now in compliance with the law he gets his rebate. He also gets to play the victim card to his target market. '

Ham's biggest problem that I see is he doesn't know how to run theme parks which is why his attendance numbers for the creation museum are cratering.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

That depends, where do you live?

[Natachan]

Presumably Mr Ham will be suing to protect his rights on the under federal government's Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Kentucky's version of that act. I don't know that Ham wins. I just don't think the case is a slam dunk for one side or the other.

They way I see this playing out is this. Ham sues and looses. He abandons his "statement of belief" requirement (after everyone is already hired) and reapplies for the rebate. Since he is now in compliance with the law he gets his rebate. He also gets to play the victim card to his target market. '

Ham's biggest problem that I see is he doesn't know how to run theme parks which is why his attendance numbers for the creation museum are cratering.

I don't think he will. The park isn't even finished yet, and won't be for a while. He wants that money to build it. I don't think he'll keep people on the payroll doing nothing for months or years just so he can get his way.

And I don't think this is one issue he's going to win on anyway. Employment and non-discrimination laws are strong. If he accepts this money and discriminates against a single person federal laws would cause him to lose a bunch of money. Not only would he lose all the government money, he would likely have to pay fines. The laws usually come down on the side of the employee in this type of thing.