RE: Ken Ham files lawsuit against Kentucky
February 7, 2015 at 6:14 am
(This post was last modified: February 7, 2015 at 7:01 am by Heywood.)
(February 6, 2015 at 3:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Back to the case itself, here's kinda a big, gaping flaw in the case they're taking to court: the basis is that they're being discriminated against due to being a christian organization, performing christian services. This claim is completely contradicted by the fact that the Ark Encounter was originally approved for the tax rebate; the state knew who and what they were, and approved them anyway. It was only after their discrimination came to light that they were refused access to the program; obviously, their being christian had nothing to do with it, as the Ark Encounter didn't become a religious concept run by a religious group after they began discriminating based on religion, that's absurd.
You really don't know anything about this case do you? Did you even read the complaint? Stop talking out of your crack if you don't know what argument is being made in the complaint.
In the initial application the park was to be financed and owned by mostly private investors. The application is approved. Circumstances change and the ministry decides to finance with debt and will now be sole owner(a new application must now be filed).
This structure change allows(AIG claims anyways) the ministry to discriminate in its hiring practices(which would not be allowed under law when private investors owned the attraction). The state now comes back and demands that AIG(this is what AIG is claiming anyways) surrender the right that it has under state and federal law to discriminate in its hiring practices in order to be approved for the incentive. AIG is claiming that it is being asked to surrender its rights because it is a religious ministry and the state has never asked non religious owners to surrender their rights to qualify for the rebate. AIG claims that since the only thing that changed from approval to denial was the fact that ownership went from a group of private investors to a religious ministry, that is evidence the state is discriminating against religious ministries.
Personally, I think it is a hard sell for AIG. Not too many people would find that belonging to a church is a bonafide job qualification for burger flipper or computer technician. However suppose it is found that it is legal for AIG to discriminate in its hiring practices.....AIG wins this case. It wins it because the state approved the application but then denied it when the attraction became solely owned by the ministry. The initial approval is evidence that the project fulfills all the requirements of outlined in the law. Which if I remember correctly, the project must cost over a million dollars. 25% of the attendance must come from out of state. It has to be in place for minimum amount of time(I guess concerts don't qualify).
(February 7, 2015 at 6:01 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:(February 7, 2015 at 5:35 am)Heywood Wrote: Can you troll just a little harder?
Ah, so this isn't about religion to you? This is purely business, where lying is okay if the tax break is big enough? Because the last time I checked, lying is not really a Christian thing to do -- never mind losing the tax break, being a liar puts your soul at risk, doesn't it?
But hey, if you think lying is cool, who are we to argue?
Me, if I was still a Christian, I'd be pissed that some liar was giving my faith a bad name. But hey, whatever gets you through the night, it's alright, right?
Esquilax thinks lying is okay. He lied presenting a quote from me of something I never actually said. Is this some sort of atheistic hypocrisy? That it is okay to lie if you are an atheists, but if a theist lies....well that is just unforgivable.
I don't care that Ham is inflating the numbers in regards to this case. It is immaterial. The project would still qualify for a rebate no matter whose numbers you use(it obviously cost more than a million dollars and at least 25% of the attendance is obviously going to come from out of state). If Ham is lying about the numbers, he isn't doing it to get approved for the project or get a bigger rebate check. Any money Ham receives from the state is going to be derived from actual sales tax revenue his attraction generates....and not numbers he presents before it is built.
If Ham is lying about the numbers, its probably to try to secure more donations for the project. If this discussion was about whether or not people should donate to this project, then Ham's lies here become material. Since his lies are immaterial to this court case, people present them only to make other people hate Ham. Hating Ham is not a good basis to decide this case. Facts and laws are a good basis to decide this case. Esquilax should learn what the facts are and what the laws are before he speaks....because its obvious he doesn't know what the hell he talking about.
(February 6, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Minimalist Wrote:(February 4, 2015 at 12:50 pm)Dystopia Wrote: I will now sue someone for not allowing me to be a bigot. How unfair - Muaaaahhhhhhh (cries)!
He has every right to be a bigot.
What he has not got is a right to demand tax breaks to support his bigotry.
He might. If his discrimination is legal, he has a right to avail himself to facially neutral government incentives and services. The government can't deny him these things because he exercises rights carved out in law.
If the ark caught on fire, the fire department would respond in spite of the ark being used to promote religion. However I imagine Esquilax would argue that such action would constitute an unlawful entanglement between church and state and then claim the pastor was lying when he called 911 by exaggerating the size of the fire.
