Ken Ham files lawsuit against Kentucky

[SteelCurtain]

Will Citizens United have any bearing on this decision? Now that corporations are people and can hold closely held beliefs, can't the "Ark Encounter" be exempted?

It would be truly shitty if that clusterfuck of a decision affected even this.

You're conflating Citizens United with Hobby Lobby.

I did. Apologies. I meant Hobby Lobby.

[Heywood]

You're conflating Citizens United with Hobby Lobby.

I did. Apologies. I meant Hobby Lobby.

Fair enough,

From what I understand, Ham is claiming that the state is treating the Ark Encounter differently because it is a religious organization. The position of the state is that they are not, that they would deny tax rebates to any organization which discriminates in hiring. The wrinkle is a law which Ham claims gives him the right to discriminate.

Suppose Ham wasn't building a giant wooden ark but instead building the most awesomeist strip club on the planet. Further suppose that he discriminated in the hiring of his dancers by stipulating he would only hire girls who are under 95 years old. He probably has a legal right to discriminate that way. Does the state have the right to punish him by denying him access to the sales tax rebate program because he exercised his right to discriminate?

[Jackalope]

Suppose Ham wasn't building a giant wooden ark but instead building the most awesomeist strip club on the planet. Further suppose that he discriminated in the hiring of his dancers by stipulating he would only hire girls who are under 95 years old. He probably has a legal right to discriminate that way. Does the state have the right to punish him by denying him access to the sales tax rebate program because he exercised his right to discriminate?

A few problems with your thought experiment.

Can't say for sure about Kentucky, but around here, strip club performers aren't employees, and aren't subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as employees.

Second, what Ham is doing isn't a lawful form of employment discrimination for a for-profit company.

[LastPoet]

Hmmm if only they started opening strip clubs instead of churches. It's a way more honest business.

[Esquilax]

From what I understand, Ham is claiming that the state is treating the Ark Encounter differently because it is a religious organization. The position of the state is that they are not, that they would deny tax rebates to any organization which discriminates in hiring. The wrinkle is a law which Ham claims gives him the right to discriminate.

Which law is it? Ham insists that he has the right to discriminate, but I also haven't seen him point to the law that's supposedly on his side, either. Is there something specific you're referencing her, or are we talking about the same generic claim?

Suppose Ham wasn't building a giant wooden ark but instead building the most awesomeist strip club on the planet. Further suppose that he discriminated in the hiring of his dancers by stipulating he would only hire girls who are under 95 years old. He probably has a legal right to discriminate that way. Does the state have the right to punish him by denying him access to the sales tax rebate program because he exercised his right to discriminate?

You're comparing apples and oranges; not hiring someone based on a lack of relevant skills isn't discrimination in a legally objectionable sense, it's just a basic understanding that one needs to be qualified for a job to get hired to do it. In your strip club example, certain physical requirements would preclude 95 year olds from being qualified to do the job. However, when we're talking about the Ark Encounter, Ham is discriminating against a protected class- religious discrimination laws also protect the religious, I have to point out, they're for the good of us all- and he's doing it based on non-relevant beliefs. He's hiring people to work at a theme park, and in particular the jobs that got him in trouble in the first place were for technicians to be involved with design and engineering; nothing in either of those jobs requires religious belief to be qualified to do them.

More importantly, you're missing some key information, in that Kentucky state laws and federal ones provide exemptions for religious employers allowing them to discriminate on the basis of religion, but not if they want to be given government incentives. Ham has every possibility of being allowed to discriminate for his religious businesses, though the chances of being awarded such an exemption falls when we're talking about a for-profit entity, but he doesn't have the right to demand that the government subsidize that. He's not being punished for his hiring practices, he's just not being given a gift because he doesn't want to follow government standards, and he's shitty about that because as a christian he expects special treatment. But he isn't owed a tax break to finish building his park any more than anyone else is, especially in light of the facts that A: he attempted to deceive the government by hiring people through his non-profit to work for his for-profit the moment it became clear that discriminating for a for-profit would jeopardize his tax break, and B: his group hired groups with a conflict of interest to artificially inflate the predicted tourist business his park would do in early estimations, which independently run government estimations quickly found to be inaccurate in the extreme.

When you characterize what's happening as Ham being punished, you're missing out the intentional deception, the nature of what's actually happening, and the fact that the guy is skirting the law, if not outright breaking them. There are rules for subsidy programs; Ken Ham doesn't have to follow them, but he does if he wants into the program.

[Heywood]

A few problems with your thought experiment.

Can't say for sure about Kentucky, but around here, strip club performers aren't employees, and aren't subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as employees.

Second, what Ham is doing isn't a lawful form of employment discrimination for a for-profit company.

First, where you live one could probably employ a person to be a strip club performer but that is not usually done because it make business sense not too(why pay the taxes and L&I if you don't have too). My point is that sometimes it is legal to discriminate in hiring practices.....including those of for-profit ventures.

Regarding your second point, this is an issue the court is going to have to decide. My understanding is that some restructuring was done and the actual discriminatory employment postings were for AnswersInGenesis(which is a non profit ministry) jobs....not Ark Encounter jobs.

Last, I think an argument could be made that believers are simply better equipped to do the job that Ark Encounters wants them to do. Hell I don't believe in the flood, but if I were building this thing strictly as a business venture, I would want the front line employees to truly believe the flood story. A believer is going to be more passionate in selling the story than a non believer. Ham has a legitimate business reason to prefer believers over non believers.

[Cato]

Suppose Ham wasn't building a giant wooden ark but instead building the most awesomeist strip club on the planet.

This analogy won't work in Kentucky, family reunions aren't subject to employment law.

[Jackalope]

A few problems with your thought experiment.

Can't say for sure about Kentucky, but around here, strip club performers aren't employees, and aren't subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as employees.

Second, what Ham is doing isn't a lawful form of employment discrimination for a for-profit company.

First, where you live one could probably employ a person to be a strip club performer but that is not usually done because it make business sense not too(why pay the taxes and L&I if you don't have too). My point is that sometimes it is legal to discriminate in hiring practices.....including those of for-profit ventures.

Sure. Where a "Bona Fide Occupational Qualification" exists.

Regarding your second point, this is an issue the court is going to have to decide.

Correct. I'm sure as fuck not accepting Ken Ham's word on anything.

Last, I think an argument could be made that believers are simply better equipped to do the job that Ark Encounters wants them to do. Hell I don't believe in the flood, but if I were building this thing strictly as a business venture, I would want the front line employees to truly believe the flood story. A believer is going to be more passionate in selling the story than a non believer.

Better equipped (and that's arguable) is not the same as unequipped. Is what one believes a BFOQ? No, though it may have an impact on a particular individual's ability to perform the job duties. Can a non-believer sell Ken Ham's brand of snake oil? Yes. Whether an individual *will* or not is a valid basis for employment decisions - but denying anyone not willing to sign a statement of belief is not.

[Crossless2.0]

Last, I think an argument could be made that believers are simply better equipped to do the job that Ark Encounters wants them to do. Hell I don't believe in the flood, but if I were building this thing strictly as a business venture, I would want the front line employees to truly believe the flood story. A believer is going to be more passionate in selling the story than a non believer. Ham has a legitimate business reason to prefer believers over non believers.

If the issue is 'passion' or believability, Ham can hire under-employed actors. There is no reason that his for-profit venture should require some kind of creedal affirmation from its applicants.

[Heywood]

Better equipped (and that's arguable) is not the same as unequipped. Is what one believes a BFOQ? No, though it may have an impact on a particular individual's ability to perform the job duties. Can a non-believer sell Ken Ham's brand of snake oil? Yes. Whether an individual *will* or not is a valid basis for employment decisions - but denying anyone not willing to sign a statement of belief is not.

Suppose I am hiring people to go out and collect signatures to get a pro gay marriage initiative on the ballot. Would it make sense to ask applicants if they were for or against gay marriage? You bet it would. You would want to hire the people who believe what you are selling over the people who are selling what you believe.....just to get a pay check.

Now the ballot example would likely be a non profit and different laws apply but it drives home the point I am making. Ham has a valid business reason to want to hire believers over non believers. He wants people to sell his product because they believe in it and not just because they want to collect a pay check.