Ken Ham files lawsuit against Kentucky

[Esquilax]

Do you know what perjury is? Perjury is more than just lying. It is lying under oath.

And if anyone from AiG takes the stand and uses the rationale that they've stated is the basis of their lawsuit, then it's relatively easy to show that this is a lie, as a person who believes he has a legal right to perform an action does not need to hide that action via sleazy business practices when the government is informed of that action. Hence, perjury.

The other alternative is that they go to court and don't once mention the claim that their case is based on, but that doesn't seem like an effective strategy. But the moment Ham or anyone on his staff mentions why they're in court in the first place, they will be lying to a judge.

You are the only one who is charging Ham with perjury and sorry but I just don't take a charge from you seriously.

So we've gone from a tu coque to poisoning the well, eh? It doesn't matter who's making a claim, it matters what the evidence is. The evidence of Ham's dishonest practices is in stark black and white, and it's not just me saying so, the government investigation agreed with me on this, that Ham was hiring through AiG to work on the Ark Encounter, something he would not need to do if he thought nothing was wrong with what he was doing. Since the case hasn't gone to court yet obviously anything I say about it is hypothetical, but the fact is that if Ham claims in court that the reason he's suing is because he believes he has always been in the legal right to do what he did, this is a demonstrable falsehood, as he began claiming that his Ark Encounter jobs were for AiG only after people started pointing out the illegality of his discrimination, that he's now claiming he has always believed to be a false charge. One does not need to react that way while believing what Ham claims to believe.

If anyone on his staff testifies that the official line Ham has stated so far is why they're in court, then that person is lying, and hence guilty of perjury.

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

You say you don't take me seriously, but you also don't read my posts, which shows just how seriously I should take your opinion of me; I've said from the beginning, literally on the first page of the thread, that I don't think it's a slam dunk. From a rational perspective it is, but in terms of the actual legality of the situation I think it depends entirely on the layout of the trial itself, if it even goes there.

But I do so love it when you insult me, and then show how ignorant and baseless your opinion really is.