Ken Ham files lawsuit against Kentucky

[kookookachoo]

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

That depends, where do you live?

Welcome to the "Kilo of the Month Club". From those shameless promoters who brought you the Cupcake of the Month Club and Strippers on Parole.

Sorry to continue this derailment. I often lose control. Big Pharma probably has a cure for that already, but I'm not gonna be the first to bite.

---

Presumably Mr Ham will be suing to protect his rights on the under federal government's Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Kentucky's version of that act. I don't know that Ham wins. I just don't think the case is a slam dunk for one side or the other.

They way I see this playing out is this. Ham sues and looses. He abandons his "statement of belief" requirement (after everyone is already hired) and reapplies for the rebate. Since he is now in compliance with the law he gets his rebate. He also gets to play the victim card to his target market. '

Ham's biggest problem that I see is he doesn't know how to run theme parks which is why his attendance numbers for the creation museum are cratering.

I don't think he will. The park isn't even finished yet, and won't be for a while. He wants that money to build it. I don't think he'll keep people on the payroll doing nothing for months or years just so he can get his way.

And I don't think this is one issue he's going to win on anyway. Employment and non-discrimination laws are strong. If he accepts this money and discriminates against a single person federal laws would cause him to lose a bunch of money. Not only would he lose all the government money, he would likely have to pay fines. The laws usually come down on the side of the employee in this type of thing.

Remember that it is an incentive and not extra money in his pocket until he SELLS his first item that is sales taxable. However, I am certain he would be able to use the promise of the incentive to help arrange some of the construction loans that he now has and will need from his backers. If this drags out for a long time, he could lose money for the development of his "attraction", which he probably needs now and not later.

I have the conspiratorial thought that there are some other people behind this lawsuit effort besides Ham.

Oh, Kookoo, you're such a fool! Why do we put up with you?
It's because I talk to myself in the third person and that can be a somewhat amusing affectation. Or not.

[Faith No More]

Allowing him to immigrate here helps me see a point to the immigration policies that conservatives would like to impose upon the country. He was forced out of power in some kind of similar religious cult over in Australia, then turns up here to hoodwink the good people of our country.

The problem isn't our immigration policies. The problem is that he found his target audience here, morons that think religion can provide scientific answers.

---

Presumably Mr Ham will be suing to protect his rights on the under federal government's Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Kentucky's version of that act. I don't know that Ham wins. I just don't think the case is a slam dunk for one side or the other.

They way I see this playing out is this. Ham sues and looses. He abandons his "statement of belief" requirement (after everyone is already hired) and reapplies for the rebate. Since he is now in compliance with the law he gets his rebate. He also gets to play the victim card to his target market. '

Ham's biggest problem that I see is he doesn't know how to run theme parks which is why his attendance numbers for the creation museum are cratering.

As ludicrous as I find your intepretation of the law, you never know what's going to happen in the United States of Jesus.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Presumably Mr Ham will be suing to protect his rights on the under federal government's Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Kentucky's version of that act. I don't know that Ham wins. I just don't think the case is a slam dunk for one side or the other.

I'm thinking that if this lawsuit gets into the Federal judiciary, the law will be voided for being unConstitutionally vague.

The text of Kentucky's law:

Government shall not substantially burden a person's freedom of religion. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A "burden" shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.

Both "compelling governmental interest" and "least restrictive measures" are undefined trouble spots.

[robvalue]

Cross all that out and replace it with "tell them to grow up or get out".

[Heywood]

Both "compelling governmental interest" and "least restrictive measures" are undefined trouble spots.

These phrases come from the Sherbert test which the court established so I doubt very much they will now find them undefined. Anyways Hams argument will be this:


1. Ark Encounters is a religious organization.

2. Federal Law carves out an exemption for religious organizations that allows them to discriminate in their hiring practices(Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).

3. State law carves out an exemption for religious organizations that allows them to discriminate in their hiring practices(KRS 344.090).

4. Providing facially neutral economic incentives does not violate the establishment clause as long as they are administered in an even handed manner. Ark Encounter would be receiving the benefit in spite of being a religious organization and not because it is a religious organization.

5. The economic incentive does not create an excessive state entanglement with religion because it does not require state officials to make judgments about the religious content of the project.

6. The state cannot argue it has a compelling state interest to prevent Ark Encounters from engaging in discrimination in its employment practices when it specifically grants Ark Encounters the right to do so by statute.

7. The demand by the Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet that Ark Encounters surrender its rights under Federal and State law to discriminate in its hiring practices in order to receive the benefits of a tax incentive smacks of overt religious discrimination and is a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

[Esquilax]

1. Ark Encounters is a religious organization.

2. Federal Law carves out an exemption for religious organizations that allows them to discriminate in their hiring practices(Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).

3. State law carves out an exemption for religious organizations that allows them to discriminate in their hiring practices(KRS 344.090).

However, those exemptions are provisional, and do not necessarily apply in all cases; for example, the chances of gaining that exception drop when discussing a for-profit entity, and one for which the primary intent is not religious (despite what it is, Ham has been selling the Ark Encounter to the state as a theme park, not a religiously motivated enterprise, knowing as well as anyone that theme parks generate more business than religious exhibits, and to distance it from his last religious deal, the creation museum. For him to change his position now, when it suits him, will look highly suspicious to a judge, and will also not be surprising in the least.) Additionally, the intentional deception involved in Ham's attempts to skirt that fact won't play well; he can argue that he's legally covered all he wants, but it won't change the fact that he didn't argue that until the law had already come down against him. When he wasn't facing any consequences and had the opportunity to continue discriminating without a fight, he lied and attempted to hide what he was doing. Not the actions of a man who thinks he's obeying the law.

[Heywood]

However, those exemptions are provisional, and do not necessarily apply in all cases; for example, the chances of gaining that exception drop when discussing a for-profit entity, and one for which the primary intent is not religious (despite what it is, Ham has been selling the Ark Encounter to the state as a theme park, not a religiously motivated enterprise, knowing as well as anyone that theme parks generate more business than religious exhibits, and to distance it from his last religious deal, the creation museum. For him to change his position now, when it suits him, will look highly suspicious to a judge, and will also not be surprising in the least.) Additionally, the intentional deception involved in Ham's attempts to skirt that fact won't play well; he can argue that he's legally covered all he wants, but it won't change the fact that he didn't argue that until the law had already come down against him. When he wasn't facing any consequences and had the opportunity to continue discriminating without a fight, he lied and attempted to hide what he was doing. Not the actions of a man who thinks he's obeying the law.

Obama lied and said the mandate wasn't a tax and then sent his lawyers before the Supreme Court to argue that the mandate was a tax. People play these games all the time. Courts decide cases on relevant facts....not lies people tell.

The common wealth will probably argue that Ark Encounters is not a religious organization as they claim to be and therefore do not qualify for the exemptions carved out in Federal and State law. I think the common wealth would have a good case. Selling goods a gift shop or burgers at a hamburger stand is not engaging in exercise of religion.

Don't get me wrong, I hope Ham wins his suit....but I hope he wins it because I don't like discrimination laws. People should have the freedom to discriminate in my opinion....but that is a another subject entirely.

[Esquilax]

Obama lied and said the mandate wasn't a tax and then sent his lawyers before the Supreme Court to argue that the mandate was a tax. People play these games all the time. Courts decide cases on relevant facts....not lies people tell.

I've never understood the christian infatuation with the tu coque fallacy, but one of the relevant facts involved in the case is that Ken Ham initially attempted to skirt the law by hiring people through AiG to work on the Ark Encounter, which demonstrates that A: the official position of the plaintiff is not what they actually believe, and B: that the plaintiff attempted to gain access to a government program designed to incentivise tourism through deceptive means. Courts don't take well to perjury, I've heard.

Another relevant fact is that the Ark Encounter was sold to the Kentucky government as a theme park, and totally not as a religious deal, in order to make it seem like a better draw for tourism dollars; if Ham wants to turn around and now say that the Ark Encounter totally is a religious thing, then I'd say he applied for the program under false pretenses, and at the very least he should have to re-apply under the terms he now finds it convenient to follow, which Ham was aware from the beginning would drastically lower the chances of getting approved for the program simply on the basis of the numbers.

These are all extremely relevant to the case; the reason Ham was denied in the first place was that he and his organization were not comporting themselves with state expectations regarding eligibility to the program. The fact that Ham has continued to engage in the behaviors that got him kicked from the program in the first place, both during the investigation regarding that and in response to it, only lends strength to the case that the state had when it rejected his application.

Don't get me wrong, I hope Ham wins his suit....but I hope he wins it because I don't like discrimination laws. People should have the freedom to discriminate in my opinion....but that is a another subject entirely.

Ham has the freedom to discriminate; he just doesn't have the right to be rewarded by the state for doing so. And leaving aside the breathtaking entitlement of demanding that you have the right to be given special treatment at will, I do wonder whether you, Heywood, would be making this argument if the discrimination was against a christian, rather than committed by one.

In fact, this exact case kinda is discrimination against christians; young earth creationism is a small, small fraction of christianity as a whole, yet the job requirements for the Ark Encounter require an affirmation of young earth creationist christianity, not just christianity as a whole. One wonders how Ham can argue that his park is a christian organization, while simultaneously discriminating against more than half of that religion.

[Heywood]

Obama lied and said the mandate wasn't a tax and then sent his lawyers before the Supreme Court to argue that the mandate was a tax. People play these games all the time. Courts decide cases on relevant facts....not lies people tell.

I've never understood the christian infatuation with the tu coque fallacy, but one of the relevant facts involved in the case is that Ken Ham initially attempted to skirt the law by hiring people through AiG to work on the Ark Encounter, which demonstrates that A: the official position of the plaintiff is not what they actually believe, and B: that the plaintiff attempted to gain access to a government program designed to incentivise tourism through deceptive means. Courts don't take well to perjury, I've heard.

Do you know what perjury is? Perjury is more than just lying. It is lying under oath. Obama lied when he told the american public Obama care did not impose new taxes on the middle class. He wasn't under oath when he willfully deceived the American public so his lie was not perjury. Clinton committed perjury when he lied under oath about having a sexual relationship with a subordinate in a deposition in a sexual harassment lawsuit. You are the only one who is charging Ham with perjury and sorry but I just don't take a charge from you seriously.

Second, Ham has filed multiple applications for this incentive. It was initially approved but was subsequently denied when Ark Encounters filed a new application after it re-organized itself as a completely religious entity.

This case is going to be decided on facts. Does the law carve out exemptions for religious organizations? Is Ark Encounter a religious organization? Does granting this supposedly neutral financial incentive unnecessarily entangle church and state? This case will not be decided on something Ham said in a radio interview or from some pulpit.

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

[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.