(February 5, 2015 at 3:33 pm)Esquilax Wrote: However, those exemptions are provisional, and do not necessarily apply in all cases; for example, the chances of gaining that exception drop when discussing a for-profit entity, and one for which the primary intent is not religious (despite what it is, Ham has been selling the Ark Encounter to the state as a theme park, not a religiously motivated enterprise, knowing as well as anyone that theme parks generate more business than religious exhibits, and to distance it from his last religious deal, the creation museum. For him to change his position now, when it suits him, will look highly suspicious to a judge, and will also not be surprising in the least.) Additionally, the intentional deception involved in Ham's attempts to skirt that fact won't play well; he can argue that he's legally covered all he wants, but it won't change the fact that he didn't argue that until the law had already come down against him. When he wasn't facing any consequences and had the opportunity to continue discriminating without a fight, he lied and attempted to hide what he was doing. Not the actions of a man who thinks he's obeying the law.
Obama lied and said the mandate wasn't a tax and then sent his lawyers before the Supreme Court to argue that the mandate was a tax. People play these games all the time. Courts decide cases on relevant facts....not lies people tell.
The common wealth will probably argue that Ark Encounters is not a religious organization as they claim to be and therefore do not qualify for the exemptions carved out in Federal and State law. I think the common wealth would have a good case. Selling goods a gift shop or burgers at a hamburger stand is not engaging in exercise of religion.
Don't get me wrong, I hope Ham wins his suit....but I hope he wins it because I don't like discrimination laws. People should have the freedom to discriminate in my opinion....but that is a another subject entirely.
