Ken Ham files lawsuit against Kentucky

[Esquilax]

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.

I read the complaint front to back, so put that well poison away, you condescending asshole.

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).

When it was privately funded to that degree, AiG also agreed in writing not to discriminate in its hiring practices. That's a non-trivial point; clearly this isn't such an important component of their religious beliefs when there's money on the table.

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.

As I've already said, that right to discriminate is only given unconditionally to fully religious entities like churches. It's provisional when applied to things like for-profit religious businesses, something that AiG clearly knows; since the likelihood that a court will find discrimination through the for-profit, subsidy-supported Ark Encounter is far less likely than through AiG, jobs for the Ark Encounter were being filed through AiG, a non-profit for which the exception is more likely to be granted.

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.

It's not a right. It's a provisional exemption from the law given on a case by case basis when applied to for-profit entities, hence all the shady shit from AiG to try and maximize the chances of getting it.

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.

But this simply isn't true: AiG was given preliminary approval in 2010, while their discriminatory hiring practices- the actual reason why they were denied- came to light in August of 2014. This is another thing that changed between approval and now, and it's also the stated reason why AiG was denied at all. I tend to think it has more of an impact than a restructuring of investment funding.

The initial approval is evidence that the project fulfills all the requirements of outlined in the law.

The initial approval was conditional on AiG not discriminating in its hiring practices, which the group agreed to in writing at the time, something that the lawsuit brief characterizes as "disconcerting." You know, the lawsuit brief you accused me of not reading, but then apparently missed out on important factors in it yourself?

This is also, by the way, the portion of the brief where AiG lies again, insisting that they only wanted to discriminate for management positions, when in fact their job ads were for CAD technicians and featured that same discrimination.

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.

If you're stupid enough to think that I was seriously presenting that quote as words of yours, placed as it was directly under an actual quote from you which used the completely different quote formatting, or dishonest enough to grasp at this specific straw, then so be it. But don't act like everyone else is as insipid or mendacious as you are, Heywood; I feel confident that at least my fellow atheists are intelligent enough to understand that I was boiling down what you said to its essential message, and not presenting it as a literal sentiment that you expressed.

And before you try to ride this bomb right the fuck into the ground, because I know how much trouble you have admitting that you were wrong, I'd like to point everyone to the fact that I just explicitly explained what I was doing in that post, for those of you too dull to understand that immediately; not much of a lie, when the very next post the "liar" makes clarifies that the "lie" was not the intended effect.

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.

Ooh, look! Heywood's lying, by saying I said something I never did! Oooioooooo, christian hypocrisy!

You can try to ridicule my position all you want, but when I post evidence in writing that Ham actually is lying, you're misrepresenting me by characterizing it as a claim in order to make what I'm saying seem baseless. Cheap shots might be your stock in trade, but you could at least pick a target that won't make you look like a bumbling fool when you take it on by pretending its something it's not.