Catholic hospitals and schools have been doing it for years.

 

How so??

It is not a violation of any law for a religious employer to require adherence to their faith's beliefs and code of conduct.

 

In answer to @lawildcat, they ask you on the job application or in the interview if you will sign an agreement to abide by their beliefs and code of conduct. I suppose a person could lie but that is how they "find out."

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

 

No. BTW, Ark Encounter probably doesn't ask what a person's sexual preference are but asks them to sign a document saying they won't engage in sexual behavior outside of marriage between one man and one woman. In other words, extramarital sexual relations according to the definition of marriage until the SCOTUS ruling last June. I could be wrong about the statement that potential employees are asked to agree to and sign, but that is my guess.

It is not a violation of any law for a religious employer to require adherence to their faith's beliefs and code of conduct.

 

In answer to @lawildcat, they ask you on the job application or in the interview if you will sign an agreement to abide by their beliefs and code of conduct. I suppose a person could lie but that is how they "find out."

 

So the ARK group has a legal loophole because they're a religious employer. Still feel like it's wrong and they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against those that aren't of the same faith and religious beliefs. If the tax incentives and free land weren't part of the deal, then I wouldn't have an issue with it.

 

I will be sure to spread the word in my family and friends circle that they shouldn't go to the park. I'm sure many of their friends will feel the same.

 

I'd be surprised if the park lasts 5 years. They'll have the initial honeymoon with all the bible thumpers going to see what it's all about. But after that, it'll fall off and then they'll file bankruptcy.

How so??

For one, Catholic hospitals will not perform an abortion.

 

Not sure about Catholic schools. You can be non-Catholic and attend and teach, but must be Catholic to teach religion.

For one, Catholic hospitals will not perform an abortion.

 

Not sure about Catholic schools. You can be non-Catholic and attend and teach, but must be Catholic to teach religion.

 

Neither of those places restrict religious beliefs or sexual orientation of their employees.

Here's the pertinent information from the court decision:

 

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.”

 

Do you think the judge and the lawyers from the other side didn't think of the issues you guys are raising? The issues have been considered and found lacking in legal merit.

 

BTW, Title VII referred to above is probably Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in which religious corporations and entities are exempt from the hiring practices. It is unlawful for the government to tell a religious institution that they have to hire people who do not adhere to their religious beliefs and practices.

 

Read the court ruling and then quote and discuss the part you disagree with.

So the ARK group has a legal loophole because they're a religious employer. Still feel like it's wrong and they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against those that aren't of the same faith and religious beliefs. If the tax incentives and free land weren't part of the deal, then I wouldn't have an issue with it.

 

I will be sure to spread the word in my family and friends circle that they shouldn't go to the park. I'm sure many of their friends will feel the same.

 

I'd be surprised if the park lasts 5 years. They'll have the initial honeymoon with all the bible thumpers going to see what it's all about. But after that, it'll fall off and then they'll file bankruptcy.

 

Not a legal loophole but a part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- Title VII.

 

Also, I have not been able to confirm that the state gave land to the park (other than the article you listed and it was stated by a third party.) All that I have ever heard mentioned are the tax incentives. Which, by the way, do not involve the state handing any money to the Park. It depends on the park making money and then once it has made money, the incentives allow it to keep more of it than they would have. If the Park makes no money, there are no tax incentives. In other words, the state of KY gives the incentives to businesses that bring tourist dollars into the state and provide jobs. There will be a net gain for the state.

 

As to how long the park will last and whether it will survive, that is anyone's guess but the predicted demise of AiG when it first was beginning was greatly exaggerated. Far more people have come to see it than anyone predicted, including Ken Hamm. This gives Hamm reason to believe people will come to the Ark Encounter. Lots of people will probably spend one day at the AiG museum and the next day at AE.

@oldgrappler thanks for bringing the court ruling details to the thread. I appreciate your patience and taking time to educate me on the issue. I figured much smarter people than myself had asked similar questions. I didn't know anything about it until I read the article.

 

Still don't like it and won't be spending any of my money on it.

For those who are OK with the State supporting the Ark Park, would you be OK if the Islamic community were to request similar state support for building an Islamic attraction which would attract similar numbers of tourists to KY as the Ark?

When you say "OK", if you mean do I think it right for the state to grant tax incentives to a tourist business that has an Islamic flavor in the same way they granted tax incentives to Ark Encounter, I would say sure. As long as this business met the same criteria that Ark Encounter did, Bourbon visitor centers did, etc.

 

Is it okay with me that this business is promoting belief in Islam? I do not favor that but it is a free country with freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

 

I have visited both the Hindu Temple in Batavia and the Islamic Center north of Cinci off I-75. I went to learn more about them and their beliefs. It was very interesting.

 

But I would rather not have an Islamic or Hindu business propagating their beliefs in NKY, but that is a personal preference. They have every right to do it. I didn't agree with the "opposition" to building an Islamic mosque in Florence near Mall Road a few years ago. My thoughts then were the same--I'd rather it not be there, but there are many Islamic people immigrating to NKY and they want a place to worship. I completely understand that desire. I would want the same opportunity if I moved to a predominately Muslim country so I am willing to grant them that same right. Not that I have the power to take the right away because we live in a free country. But my druthers would be that it wasn't here.

 

So, I am willing for other religiously-based businesses to receive tax incentives if they meet the state's criteria.

And KY is on the hook for attorney's fees

 

LINK

 

Question why is it in cases like this the loser pays but not so in civil suits between individuals?

And KY is on the hook for attorney's fees

 

LINK

 

Question why is it in cases like this the loser pays but not so in civil suits between individuals?

 

Often when the government has to be sued to do what it should have done in the 1st place, the person who had to sue to get them to do it is entitled to attorney fees. Theory is that if citizens have to sue to get the government to do their job, it will "chill" their likelihood to do so and governments will often do the wrong thing knowing it is wrong but calculating that its too expensive for anyone to challenge them.

 

There's probably a civil rights statute implicated and they often include attorney fees provisions for the same reason.

No real objection here. The fact that KY is agreeing to take less in taxes than it would otherwise take (i.e., tax abatement) rather than actually handing out cash to them is less offensive to me. If they succeed, KY gets taxes, just not as much. If they fail, KY is not out hard cash.

 

As to the employment side of things, this is very similar to teachers in Catholic or other schools being fired for having a kid out of wedlock or announcing they are gay. Religious institutions are given some leeway under Title VII to require adherence to the philosophy. They would not, I presume, be able to prevent hiring based on color, age, gender or the traditional "protected class" categories.

This is a perfect example of that ridiculous level of irrational outrage that permeates our society today. Seriously, if you don't like it, don't go. Not everything that you disagree with is a crisis. The world isn't ending, the sky isn't falling, get over it and go on with your life.