June 21, 201610 yr Kentucky's controversial ark (Opinion) - CNN.com Trying not to be political with this subject, but it seems a little hypocritical on the government's part to support a place that requires you to sign a "Statement of Faith" to work there. Especially when that Statement of Faith states an employee must disavow homosexuality, same-sex marriage and pre-marital sex.
June 21, 201610 yr Not a word about the law suit Ken Ham won in order to receive the tax incentives. What kind of reporting leaves that out? A court ruled that withholding the tax incentives to Ark Encounter would be discriminatory. The state stays neutral by not dictating the business's beliefs. To tell Ark Encounter that they can't have a statement of faith is the government imposing its beliefs on them.
June 22, 201610 yr Author What's wrong with that? If you don't see what's wrong with that, then nothing I say would make you understand why it's wrong.
June 22, 201610 yr If you don't see what's wrong with that, then nothing I say would make you understand why it's wrong. Well maybe you can explain why it's bad and we can discuss?
June 22, 201610 yr Author I failed to include the all of reasons why I feel like it is wrong for the government to give tax incentives. Employees must also believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and Jesus Christ. So, no Jewish or Muslim employees. I would be ineligible, too. Catholics embrace evolutionary science. As Pope Francis teaches: "When we read about creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. Seems to violate the equal employment opportunity act. If it's a for profit company then they shouldn't be allowed to put restrictions on who can work there based on their religious beliefs.
June 22, 201610 yr Author It's not bad, so don't expect any logical explanation? How's that for logical? It appears to violate a federal law. Get off your high and mighty mountain and open your mind a little bit.
June 22, 201610 yr How's that for logical? It appears to violate a federal law. Get off your high and mighty mountain and open your mind a little bit. And what did the court decision say? Does anyone know why the court reversed the state's intentions to deny the tax incentives? The Commonwealth of KY was going to deny the tax incentives. This theme park met all the criteria for a business to receive such tax benefits. The only thing different about it is that it is religious in nature. The court decided it was discriminatory to not give it the same tax incentives it would give to any other business in the same position. It obviously does not violate a federal law.
June 22, 201610 yr Author And what did the court decision say? Does anyone know why the court reversed the state's intentions to deny the tax incentives? The Commonwealth of KY was going to deny the tax incentives. This theme park met all the criteria for a business to receive such tax benefits. The only thing different about it is that it is religious in nature. The court decided it was discriminatory to not give it the same tax incentives it would give to any other business in the same position. It obviously does not violate a federal law. I don't see how it doesn't violate the law. They are able to refuse employment to someone on their sexual preference and their religious beliefs. At least that's how I interpret their 'Statement of Faith' requirement. I'm sure no one would or is going to oppose it because it's all about the all mighty dollar. Kind of odd how laws can be applied or ignored when and if it fits an agenda.
June 22, 201610 yr And what did the court decision say? Does anyone know why the court reversed the state's intentions to deny the tax incentives? The Commonwealth of KY was going to deny the tax incentives. This theme park met all the criteria for a business to receive such tax benefits. The only thing different about it is that it is religious in nature. The court decided it was discriminatory to not give it the same tax incentives it would give to any other business in the same position. It obviously does not violate a federal law. The two issues are completely unrelated....You're talking about the tax structure of the business, whereas @NamecipS is discussing the employment practices. It meets the criteria of a theme park, thus it should be allowed the tax benefits of one. Their employment practices seem to be completely discriminatory in nature.
June 22, 201610 yr I don't see how it doesn't violate the law. They are able to refuse employment to someone on their sexual preference and their religious beliefs. At least that's how I interpret their 'Statement of Faith' requirement. I'm sure no one would or is going to oppose it because it's all about the all mighty dollar. Kind of odd how laws can be applied or ignored when and if it fits an agenda. They already did oppose it and a court forced them to give them the tax incentives. What don't you understand about that? The issues you raise were considered and a court denied that the park was violating anyone's civil rights. Go read the court's decision and it will explain.
June 22, 201610 yr Here's a portion of one article about it: In a victory for religious freedom in America, a federal court today issued a preliminary injunction against the Commonwealth of Kentucky for unlawfully blocking efforts by the Ark Encounter theme park developer, Answers in Genesis (“AiG”), to participate in the Kentucky Tourism Development Program. The federal court found “that the Commonwealth’s exclusion of AiG from participating in the program for the reasons stated – i.e., on the basis of AiG’s religious beliefs, purpose, mission, message, or conduct, is a violation of AiG’s rights under the First Amendment to the federal Constitution” (p. 70). The judge has ordered the state to move forward in processing AiG’s application for the available tax rebate incentives that would become effective after the Ark opens and is operating. In his decision today, Judge Greg Van Tatenhove of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky also upheld AiG’s right to religious preferences in its hiring. In the last paragraph of his ruling, the judge declared that AiG may “utilize any Title VII exception for which it qualifies concerning the hiring of its personnel.” Earlier in his decision he stated, “Because AiG likely qualifies for the ministerial exception under Title VII, it can choose to hire people who adhere to certain religious beliefs while still being in compliance with state and federal law as agreed in the application and without their hiring practices being attributed to the Commonwealth.” View the whole article here: Victory for AiG/Ark Encounter in Federal Court | Answers in Genesis web site with more information here: Religious Freedom | Answers in Genesis The only laws being violated were by the Commonwealth for discriminating against The Ark Encounter simply for its constitutionally protected religious views. Thank God for the constitution.
June 22, 201610 yr I will admit that I don't understand it all. It does seem to be illegal. How I this different than a Catholic school asking for vouchers or receiving state funding? And I will preface that I am looking for explanations because I DO NOT understand it all.
June 22, 201610 yr Here's a link to a copy of the court order: https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/ark/court-opinion-and-order.pdf
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.