Ken Ham files lawsuit against Kentucky

[Esquilax]

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.

Actually, it's the exact opposite: the jobs were originally, and unambiguously listed as, for the Ark Encounter. The restructuring that occurred happened after it was pointed out- in a legal context, as Ham didn't care when it was pointed out just casually- that discrimination in that context is illegal, and it literally amounts to nothing more than claiming that the job is for AiG, while still being listed as for the Ark Encounter, and in content being work for the Ark Encounter.

Effectively, they're hiring "for" AiG, and then putting those they hire to work on the Ark Encounter. It's the intentional deception of the government I talked about earlier.

[Heywood]

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.

A good actor will play his/her part in the interview and profess belief. Suppose Ham isn't allowed to have people sign statements of belief. Or Ham decides to get rid of the statements so he can get the tax rebate. Who do you think is going to get hired when the interviews are conducted? It will be people with crucifixes dangling from a neckless.

[Jackalope]

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.

You might want them to, but in the case of a for-profit business hiring for positions where their religious beliefs are NOT a BFOQ, what you would want in this instance is irrelevant, because that sort of discrimination is illegal.

Now the ballot example would likely be a non profit and different laws apply but it drives home the point I am making.

No, it doesn't.

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.

What Ken Ham wants is wholly irrelevant in this case, because it appears that what Ken Ham wants is unlawful.

I'd like a kilo of the finest Colombian cocaine delivered to my door, but I ain't gonna get it.

[Heywood]

You might want them to, but in the case of a for-profit business hiring for positions where their religious beliefs are NOT a BFOQ, what you would want in this instance is irrelevant, because that sort of discrimination is illegal.

The court can decide if it is a Bonafide Occupational Qualification.....if Ham makes it an issue. I think Ham could make a good faith argument that it is.

[Tonus]

Who do you think is going to get hired when the interviews are conducted? It will be people with crucifixes dangling from a neckless.

You've got to admit, that would be a pretty neat trick.

[Heywood]

Who do you think is going to get hired when the interviews are conducted? It will be people with crucifixes dangling from a neckless.

You've got to admit, that would be a pretty neat trick.

I'm talking about dangley things....that are sometimes wooden.

[Jackalope]

You might want them to, but in the case of a for-profit business hiring for positions where their religious beliefs are NOT a BFOQ, what you would want in this instance is irrelevant, because that sort of discrimination is illegal.

The court can decide if it is a Bonafide Occupational Qualification.....if Ham makes it an issue. I think Ham could make a good faith argument that it is.

I have no doubt that he'll try to make that argument. I also have no doubt that a reasonable court would reject it. It remains to be seen whether the court in question is reasonable.

[Crossless2.0]

You've got to admit, that would be a pretty neat trick.

I'm talking about dangley things....that are sometimes wooden.

Somehow I don't see Ham hiring a bunch of Catholics to work at his park. Or have Protestants embraced the crucifix and I didn't get the memo?

Now plain crosses, on the other hand . . .

[Jackalope]

I'm talking about dangley things....that are sometimes wooden.

Somehow I don't see Ham hiring a bunch of Catholics to work at his park. Or have Protestants embraced the crucifix and I didn't get the memo?

Now plain crosses, on the other hand . . .

It's kind of irrelevant, really. Belief in Genesis-as-literal-truth (the brand of faithful Ham wants to hire) isn't anywhere near a universal belief amongst Christians.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

What law is that?

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

I suppose he would be less likely to illegally discriminate based on religion in his hiring practices.

Further suppose that he discriminated in the hiring of his dancers by stipulating he would only hire girls who are under 95 years old.

Why would he stipulate that? He should hire dancers based on looks and talent, there doesn't seem to be a practical need to screen older dancers in advance. But as far as I know, Kentucky doesn't have a law that prohibits age discrimination in hiring.

He probably has a legal right to discriminate that way.

Probably. But if he stipulates 'no Jewish applicants', he's going to have a hard time.

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?

When did you establish that Ken Ham has a right to discriminate based on religion?