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.

 

Go to the links I provided and you will have more info than you know what to do with.

 

The difference between this and Catholic schools is that this is a tourist attraction and KY established a tax incentive plan for such businesses that would draw people to KY to spend money here and provide jobs in KY. Kentucky Kingdom, The Motor Speedway, Bourbon visitor centers, Maker's Mark etc have been recipients of this tax incentives.

 

BTW, no government money was used to build the park. The issue is tax incentives for building it in KY and not Indiana or Ohio or some other place.

Edited June 22, 201610 yr by oldgrappler

Why are we peeing on the ARK?

I see this as no different than certain jobs requiring certifications or degrees/experience to get hired. It's a condition of employment IMO.

In reading the "court opinion-and-order" the the rub comes between the two phrases in the 1st amendment, one establishing the right of the free exercise of religion the second being the non-establishment of religion. The court says that these two phrases represent two competing interests and there is always a conflict between the two in applying the 1st amendment. Ark Encounter and AiG said the state was infringing on its right to express its religious freedom, the state said to give the tax incentive would violate the establishment clause.

 

This is fascinating stuff.

 

Here is a portion of the court's statement that explains the difficulty:

 

At the outset, it is worth noting that some interaction between church and state is

“inevitable”; the question before us is whether such interaction actually creates an impermissible

establishment of religion. Johnson v. Econ. Dev. Corp. of Cty. of Oakland, 241 F.3d 501, 515

(6th Cir. 2001); Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116, 123 (1982) (“some limited and

incidental entanglement between church and state authority is inevitable in a complex modern

society”). When analyzing applicable First Amendment standards, Supreme Court Justice

Breyer once noted that the Supreme Court “has found no single mechanical formula that can

accurately draw the constitutional line in every case,” and concluded that “no exact formula can

dictate a resolution to [] fact-intensive cases.” Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 699-700

(2005) (Breyer, J., concurring in judgment). He further cautioned that in such “difficult

borderline cases,” there is “no test-related substitute for the exercise of legal judgment.” Id. at

700. He warned that such judgment, however, “must reflect and remain faithful to the

underlying purposes of the Clauses, and it must take account of context and consequences

measured in light of those purposes.” Id. at 700. In light of this caution, it is worthwhile to keep

in mind the overall purpose of the First Amendment when applying the relevant standards.

 

Here's a pertinent section that explains what the establishment clause means in the constitution. It means, in effect, that the government can't establish one religion or denomination as the national religion and force attendence, and receive funds for its support, and enforce orthodoxy. Pretty hard to say that is what the Commonwealth of KY is doing by giving the same tax incentive to a religious organization that it gives to other businesses.

 

In other words, “the Establishment Clause was meant to prevent any national

ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the

national government.” Id. at 298 (quoting 3 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of

the United States §1871, at 728 (1833)). “The coercion that was a hallmark of historical

establishments of religion was coercion of religious orthodoxy and of financial support by force

of law and threat of penalty.” Town of Greece, 134 S.Ct. at 1837 (quoting Lee, 505 U.S. at 640

(Scalia, J., dissenting)). On the other hand, however, “the Establishment Clause does not compel

the government to purge from the public sphere all that in any way partakes of the religious.”

Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 700.

 

 

There is something called the Lemmon test to decide if the establishment clause has been violated. There are 3 criteria used. And the tax incentive program does not violate any of those criteria, therefore, the establishment clause is not in violation by KY granting AiG or the Ark Encounter the tax incentives.

 

The document is 71 pages long and I left off at page 23. I think I get the gist of it. I actually only read through the first criteria, the second and third are later in the doc, but it appears that the state of KY does not violate any of the criteria set by legal precedent in giving the tax incentive to AiG/Ark Encounter.

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.

 

Do you even know how many federal laws are broke already.

Why don't you go complain about immigration if you want to complain about breaking federal laws.

If people don't like what the Ark is about or who works there then don't go.

Furthermore, the court document said that giving the tax incentive to Ark Encounter would not be an endorsement of its religious views any more than giving the tax incentive to a bourbon visitor center would be an endorsement of that particular maker's bourbon over another bourbon maker's brand.

 

Love the application of logic and consistency in this decision.

From the article:

 

tax incentives and free land provided by the state of Kentucky and Grant County to operate Ham's "evangelical tool," all in exchange for the hope that the Ark will attract millions of tourism dollars and jobs to the state

 

"Free land" provided by the state and the county. What the heck?

I see this as no different than certain jobs requiring certifications or degrees/experience to get hired. It's a condition of employment IMO.

 

A certification or degree can be obtained by anyone. A person shouldn't be excluded based on their religious beliefs or sexual preference. It totally violates the Equal Opportunity Act. The more I think about it the more it bothers me that our state is offering tax incentives to a place that is essentially thumbing it's nose at a law meant to make things equal for all.

 

@oldgrappler, when I get home I'll take some time to read your links.

Why are we peeing on the ARK?

 

My issue with this isn't really about the ARK, it's more with the state offering tax incentives to a business that is violating a law. Mountain Ref is right, laws are broken all the time. But in this case, the perception is that the our state government is supporting it by offering the tax incentives.

^ I understand your issue. Ark Encounter is requiring adherence to its statement of faith (and lifestyle code of conduct) that precludes some Americans from working for them--like homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Rastafarians, etc. The girl is not right about it excluding Catholics because Catholics could believe in a literal interp of Genesis 1 but it is not required. The Pope does not.

 

Is this sort of discrimination allowed by the law? If I have time I will see if this is addressed in the court statement. An article on one of the links referenced seems to think so and it referred to legal precedent. I will have to look at it.

 

This is a valid question @NamecipS.

My issue with this isn't really about the ARK, it's more with the state offering tax incentives to a business that is violating a law. Mountain Ref is right, laws are broken all the time. But in this case, the perception is that the our state government is supporting it by offering the tax incentives.

 

But a court ruled they aren't breaking the law. So until ruled differently, I agree this is no different than supporting the Bourbon Trail! Why is it okay to support it?

^ I understand your issue. Ark Encounter is requiring adherence to its statement of faith (and lifestyle code of conduct) that precludes some Americans from working for them--like homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Rastafarians, etc. The girl is not right about it excluding Catholics because Catholics could believe in a literal interp of Genesis 1 but it is not required. The Pope does not.

 

Is this sort of discrimination allowed by the law? If I have time I will see if this is addressed in the court statement. An article on one of the links referenced seems to think so and it referred to legal precedent. I will have to look at it.

 

This is a valid question @NamecipS.

 

 

How is the Ark encounter going to know if someone is homosexual, Jewish, Catholic, etc...unless they ask? And you're not allowed to ask things like that during a job interview?!

My issue with this isn't really about the ARK, it's more with the state offering tax incentives to a business that is violating a law. Mountain Ref is right, laws are broken all the time. But in this case, the perception is that the our state government is supporting it by offering the tax incentives.

 

What laws are they breaking? They have requirements to fulfill the jobs they have, no different than any other employer.

What laws are they breaking? They have requirements to fulfill the jobs they have, no different than any other employer.

 

Restricting religious beliefs and sexual preferences is a violation of the Equal Opportunity act, is it not?

Restricting religious beliefs and sexual preferences is a violation of the Equal Opportunity act, is it not?

 

Catholic hospitals and schools have been doing it for years.