Ken Ham files lawsuit against Kentucky

[Heywood]

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.

I've never understood the christian infatuation with the tu coque fallacy, but one of the relevant facts involved in the case is that Ken Ham initially attempted to skirt the law by hiring people through AiG to work on the Ark Encounter, which demonstrates that A: the official position of the plaintiff is not what they actually believe, and B: that the plaintiff attempted to gain access to a government program designed to incentivise tourism through deceptive means. Courts don't take well to perjury, I've heard.

Do you know what perjury is? Perjury is more than just lying. It is lying under oath. Obama lied when he told the american public Obama care did not impose new taxes on the middle class. He wasn't under oath when he willfully deceived the American public so his lie was not perjury. Clinton committed perjury when he lied under oath about having a sexual relationship with a subordinate in a deposition in a sexual harassment lawsuit. You are the only one who is charging Ham with perjury and sorry but I just don't take a charge from you seriously.

Second, Ham has filed multiple applications for this incentive. It was initially approved but was subsequently denied when Ark Encounters filed a new application after it re-organized itself as a completely religious entity.

This case is going to be decided on facts. Does the law carve out exemptions for religious organizations? Is Ark Encounter a religious organization? Does granting this supposedly neutral financial incentive unnecessarily entangle church and state? This case will not be decided on something Ham said in a radio interview or from some pulpit.

You guys think it is a slam dunk...it isn't. It can go either way.