Ark Park will sue over employment discrimination

An artist rendering of the Ark Encounter in a later phase of construction. (Source: Janelle MacDonald, WAVE 3 News)

A ton of dirt (unless you dry it) is, IIRC, about the same density of water, so it's about a cubic meter. The 'footprint' of the ark would only be about 120x30=3,600 meters square. They can't be building that deep a whole, so I'm guessing the million tons refers to the standard big-construction practice of flattening everything in the entire area and then rebuilding any landscaping you actually want.

I totally cracked up when he said "millions of cubic tons."

Cubic tons.

That good old boy is just letting words fall out of his pie hole.

However, all that aside, could this "good old boy" be sly as a fox and planning to use the Hobby Lobby defense that Ark Encounter, a for-profit company, can suffer religious discrimination because it wants to religiously discriminate in its hiring practice by requiring applicants to sign a "statement of faith."

I must say, this gives me a headache.

Doc Bill said: I totally cracked up when he said "millions of cubic tons."

Did anyone else notice in that slide show of the construction that there is a picture of Noah keeping records with a pencil or pen?

Someone in the WAVE3 article's comments posted this link: http://www.severian.org/severian/ark1-wide_sm.jpg.

[:-)]

Mike Elzinga said: Did anyone else notice in that slide show of the construction that there is a picture of Noah keeping records with a pencil or pen?

callahanpb said:

Mike Elzinga said: Did anyone else notice in that slide show of the construction that there is a picture of Noah keeping records with a pencil or pen?

Back when David MacMillan was posting regularly, he explained (plausibly) that part of the YEC worldview assumed that the pre-flood world was a kind of technological golden age ("steampunk Babylon" as he put it). It reminded me of Atlantis legends, and also struck me as a significant observation, because it really does explain how different their assumptions are. So you might look at some kind of writing stylus and think it's a lazy anachronism (and I don't rule that out either) but it may in fact be consistent with other parts of YEC thinking.

Mike Elzinga said: Did anyone else notice in that slide show of the construction that there is a picture of Noah keeping records with a pencil or pen?

So let me get this straight. A religious organization that thinks that everyone who doesn't believe the way that they do is going to hell, is suing a government based on the premise that all men are created equal, so that they can get a special exemption from their responsibility to support that government, in order to try to con people into believing the fairy tales that they spout, which have absolutely no basis in either fact or rational thought. In order to so this, they have constructed a monstrosity that, more than anything else absolutely proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the fairy tale they so desperately want you to believe, couldn't possibly have happened. And in order to build this monument to ignorance, they refuse to employ anyone who doesn't already believe the fairy tale. They also want to hire only true believers to show people the monstrosity, even though they have already told the government that they intend to make money on the deal. But they are still unwilling to pay the government that allows them the freedom to express their irrational views, even though they couldn't construct the monstrosity without government help, because even the true believers don't believe in the project enough to actually come up with the money to pay for it themselves. And of course, the only people they will be able to con into paying them money to come and see the antithesis of rationality, are the people who already believe, since they obviously aren't going to convince anyone else that the impossible and irrational magic flood actually happened. Got it.

The Ark Park suing the state is a kind of asymmetrical warfare.

No doubt, they have a lawyer on retainer. It costs them almost nothing to sue. Too bad the state can't reply in kind, by suing for monetary damages for its citizens who were denied employment and discriminated against by the religious bigotry of Ken Ham.

DS said: So let me get this straight. A religious organization that thinks that everyone who doesn't believe the way that they do is going to hell, is suing a government based on the premise that all men are created equal, so that they can get a special exemption from their responsibility to support that government, in order to try to con people into believing the fairy tales that they spout, which have absolutely no basis in either fact or rational thought. In order to so this, they have constructed a monstrosity that, more than anything else absolutely proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the fairy tale they so desperately want you to believe, couldn't possibly have happened. And in order to build this monument to ignorance, they refuse to employ anyone who doesn't already believe the fairy tale. They also want to hire only true believers to show people the monstrosity, even though they have already told the government that they intend to make money on the deal. But they are still unwilling to pay the government that allows them the freedom to express their irrational views, even though they couldn't construct the monstrosity without government help, because even the true believers don't believe in the project enough to actually come up with the money to pay for it themselves. And of course, the only people they will be able to con into paying them money to come and see the antithesis of rationality, are the people who already believe, since they obviously aren't going to convince anyone else that the impossible and irrational magic flood actually happened. Got it.

TomS said: You forgot one detail. This is supposed to celebrate a massive disaster to humanity and nature, something which overshadows all of the wars and plagues of the twentieth century. This ought to be rated XXX.

burllamb said: The Ark Park suing the state is a kind of asymmetrical warfare. No doubt, they have a lawyer on retainer. It costs them almost nothing to sue. Too bad the state can't reply in kind, by suing for monetary damages for its citizens who were denied employment and discriminated against by the religious bigotry of Ken Ham.

One of the biggest problems mucking this all up is that this is Kentucky; a state in which a candidate running against Mitch McConnell doesn't dare say whom she voted for in the last Presidential elections and can't admit that the Kentucky health care plan was part of the Affordable Care Act. A state in which fundamentalism exists under protection of government officials and receives promises and benefits without the scrutiny of legal experts familiar with Constitutional Law. A state that has a hodge-podge of mutually conflicting and ambiguous laws that both favor particular sectarian views and appear to follow the Constitution.

What government official is going to admit that he (very likely a male) finagled deals for people like Ham? Why didn't anybody follow through on the changes Ham made to his organizations in building his shell game to conceal where the money was really going?

Note that all this became public knowledge after groups outside of Kentucky started scrutinizing this deal, started reporting what they were seeing, and then notified the public officials involved. Nobody officially representing the State of Kentucky appears to have initiated any systematic oversight of this deal from its very beginning.

It appears that a few of the Kentucky news organizations are noticing and reporting only after outside groups noticed what was going on.

Ham came from Australia and chose Kentucky as his base of operations for reasons only a sectarian con artist would recognize instantly.

phhht said:

Doc Bill said: I totally cracked up when he said "millions of cubic tons."

That's what, about a million square liters?

I agree that "cubic ton" doesn't make much sense in terms of dimensional analysis, but apparently it has been used as a unit of volume:

"The cubic ton is a measure of volume (compare fluid ounce). It is no longer used in the United Kingdom but seems to be still in use in the United States."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_ton

It also doesn't have a standard definition.

anthrosciguy said:

phhht said:

Doc Bill said: I totally cracked up when he said "millions of cubic tons."

That's what, about a million square liters?

It'd take a guy without a slide rule a dozen light-years to figure that out.

Mike Elzinga said: One of the biggest problems mucking this all up is that this is Kentucky; a state in which a candidate running against Mitch McConnell doesn't dare say whom she voted for in the last Presidential elections and can't admit that the Kentucky health care plan was part of the Affordable Care Act.

Kentucky (1891) Constitution: Section 5: Right of religious freedom. No preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society or denomination; nor to any particular creed, mode of worship or system of ecclesiastical polity; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, to contribute to the erection or maintenance of any such place, or to the salary or support of any minister of religion; nor shall any man be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed; and the civil rights, privileges or capacities of no person shall be taken away, or in anywise diminished or enlarged, on account of his belief or disbelief of any religious tenet, dogma or teaching. No human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.

Ham came from Australia and chose Kentucky as his base of operations for reasons only a sectarian con artist would recognize instantly.

"The cubic ton is a measure of volume (compare fluid ounce). It is no longer used in the United Kingdom but seems to be still in use in the United States."

Matt Young said: I can see how the term fluid ounce was derived -- the volume of an ounce of water. But cubic ton? Makes no sense. Oh well, as John Ciardi said, approximately, language behaves the way it does because it does.

There are some other--but real--peculiar measurements. One of my favorites is the "displacement ton", which is (or used to be) defined as 35 cubic feet of sea water.

Mike Elzinga said: One of the biggest problems mucking this all up is that this is Kentucky; a state in which a candidate running against Mitch McConnell doesn't dare say whom she voted for in the last Presidential elections and can't admit that the Kentucky health care plan was part of the Affordable Care Act. A state in which fundamentalism exists under protection of government officials and receives promises and benefits without the scrutiny of legal experts familiar with Constitutional Law. A state that has a hodge-podge of mutually conflicting and ambiguous laws that both favor particular sectarian views and appear to follow the Constitution. What government official is going to admit that he (very likely a male) finagled deals for people like Ham? Why didn't anybody follow through on the changes Ham made to his organizations in building his shell game to conceal where the money was really going? Note that all this became public knowledge after groups outside of Kentucky started scrutinizing this deal, started reporting what they were seeing, and then notified the public officials involved. Nobody officially representing the State of Kentucky appears to have initiated any systematic oversight of this deal from its very beginning. It appears that a few of the Kentucky news organizations are noticing and reporting only after outside groups noticed what was going on. Ham came from Australia and chose Kentucky as his base of operations for reasons only a sectarian con artist would recognize instantly.

W. H. Heydt said: There are some other--but real--peculiar measurements. One of my favorites is the "displacement ton", which is (or used to be) defined as 35 cubic feet of sea water.

harold said: I thought construction projects generally did measure the volume of earth displaced. Why would they care about the weight, although of course it can be estimated from the volume?

harold said:

W. H. Heydt said: There are some other--but real--peculiar measurements. One of my favorites is the "displacement ton", which is (or used to be) defined as 35 cubic feet of sea water.

My understanding is that the nautical ton derives from the medieval term "tunne" (numerous spellings), referring to how many "tunnes" (barrels of an approximately standard size) a ship could carry, the implied cargo being wine. It eventually became the measure of the size of a ship, technically by volume, even applied to warships and other types of ships that don't carry barrels of cargo. That is, of course, more or less directly related to the volume of water displaced. Ironically, "ton" actually could be thought of as a measure of volume, in at least one context. Outside of nautical use, it usually means a measure of weight, though. A ton of lead has much less volume than a ton of something less dense. I thought construction projects generally did measure the volume of earth displaced. Why would they care about the weight, although of course it can be estimated from the volume?

TomS said:

Mike Elzinga said: Did anyone else notice in that slide show of the construction that there is a picture of Noah keeping records with a pencil or pen?

I noticed that they showed some of the floor plans of their version of the Ark. What struck me what was the small space allotted for the animals. Even a pre-teen should recognize that there would not be room for all of the well known large vertebrates, even to take the "kinds" as taxonomic families.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, you are right.

eric said: A ton of dirt (unless you dry it) is, IIRC, about the same density of water, so it's about a cubic meter.

That should have read above, "at least a cubic meter per person per day for my field crew."

My personal best was 1.8 cubic meters of soil excavated, screened, bagged and tagged. That means excavated with a care for bones and stones. Filled into screens, and shaken down to remove "excess." Soil, and pollen samples collected. Paper work filled out, and the recovered sample for every 10 cm thick 1 meter square was sent off to the lab crews. No more than 0.5 cm variance was allowed in any diminution. I used to lose sleep that the floor errors were +/- 20%. 25 years later and I still have bad dreams of mixed samples, or bad unit labels. (Really. It is pathetic. I had one just last night).

Matt Young said:

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, you are right.

Merriam-Webster says the same thing. But originally a tun was a unit of volume, so cubic tuns makes as little sense as cubic tons, and I am still puzzled as to the origin of the term, cubic ton. I suppose volumetric ton would have been to much to ask for.

Matt Young said:

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, you are right.

Merriam-Webster says the same thing. But originally a tun was a unit of volume, so cubic tuns makes as little sense as cubic tons, and I am still puzzled as to the origin of the term, cubic ton. I suppose volumetric ton would have been to much to ask for.

Owosso Harpist said:

callahanpb said:

Mike Elzinga said: Did anyone else notice in that slide show of the construction that there is a picture of Noah keeping records with a pencil or pen?

Back when David MacMillan was posting regularly, he explained (plausibly) that part of the YEC worldview assumed that the pre-flood world was a kind of technological golden age ("steampunk Babylon" as he put it). It reminded me of Atlantis legends, and also struck me as a significant observation, because it really does explain how different their assumptions are. So you might look at some kind of writing stylus and think it's a lazy anachronism (and I don't rule that out either) but it may in fact be consistent with other parts of YEC thinking.

Actually I see this so-called pre-Flood world as creationists borrowing science fiction to promote science fiction-- their own science fiction falsely paraded as truth.

However, that is also the origin of the measure of weight.

What I don't get is why they don't just ask god to do another "poof" and the ark is just built. Ya know, the same way in which all a da animalias was poofed. Or even simpler, why not ask god for the money needed to build the thing, or maybe for enough money sos they didn't need no stiinkin tax breaks. For that matter, why not ask god for all the money, then they wouldn't need to try to make a buck off the deal in the first place.

Wait. I know, maybe it was that turning over the tables of the tax collector thingy. Yea that must be it. Ona counta they must be figuring that god will get really pissed about that kinda thing. Well maybe they shoulda thought on that a might before they started fixin to commence to begin their little tax fraud venture in the first place.

Mike Elzinga said: One of the biggest problems mucking this all up is that this is Kentucky;

Dr GS Hurd said: My personal best was 1.8 cubic meters of soil excavated, screened, bagged and tagged. That means excavated with a care for bones and stones.

come on guys, look at for whom the lawyer works. (the newspaper misquoted him) he said "cubit tonnes" and as anyone knows, who reads their Bible, a cubit tonnes is a barrel about 1 cubit in height (somewhere around 44cm) and is roughly cylindrical, and about as high as it is wide (that's how they made barrels before the flood you see) so we can calculate the volume by applying the formula of the area of the circle that is the top/bottom by the height or, radius (22cm) * 3 (pi)squared = 22x9 =198square cm x height 44cm = 8712 cubic cm or .8712 cubic meters which would weigh 871kg or 1916lbs. (if we assume the same density as water)

almost exactly a modern 'ton'

so the lawyer was using a perfectly cromulent term - either they moved approx. 870,000 cubic meters of dirt or 870,000 metric tons of dirt are a million cubit tonnes , whatever

/snark

Slightly off-task, but someone sent me this link, in which Mr. Ham criticizes a cruise corporation for "blatant" use of evolution in its advertising at the Super Bowl. Blatant use of a well established scientific theory on television? That is not bad news; it is good news.

Matt Young said: Slightly off-task, but someone sent me this link, in which Mr. Ham criticizes a cruise corporation for "blatant" use of evolution in its advertising at the Super Bowl. Blatant use of a well established scientific theory on television? That is not bad news; it is good news.

Matt Young said: Slightly off-task, but someone sent me this link, in which Mr. Ham criticizes a cruise corporation for "blatant" use of evolution in its advertising at the Super Bowl. Blatant use of a well established scientific theory on television? That is not bad news; it is good news.

DS said: What I don't get is why they don't just ask god to do another "poof" and the ark is just built. Ya know, the same way in which all a da animalias was poofed. Or even simpler, why not ask god for the money needed to build the thing, or maybe for enough money sos they didn't need no stiinkin tax breaks. For that matter, why not ask god for all the money, then they wouldn't need to try to make a buck off the deal in the first place. Wait. I know, maybe it was that turning over the tables of the tax collector thingy. Yea that must be it. Ona counta they must be figuring that god will get really pissed about that kinda thing. Well maybe they shoulda thought on that a might before they started fixin to commence to begin their little tax fraud venture in the first place.

TomS said: He complains about those who say that we came from the sea (or the stars), for that means that the sea is our mother, and thus we worship the sea. His book tells us that we came from the dust (or from Adam's rib), so he must be a worshipper of dust?

60187mitchells said: so the lawyer was using a perfectly cromulent term - either they moved approx. 870,000 cubic meters of dirt or 870,000 metric tons of dirt are a million cubit tonnes , whatever

turned down the group's application for the tax rebates, arguing that the Ark Encounter had changed its position on hiring policies since filing its original application in 2010 and now intended to discriminate based on religion. The park, cabinet officials said in a letter, had evolved from a tourist attraction into an extension of the ministry activities of Answers in Genesis, which promotes a literal interpretation of the Bible's Old Testament and argues that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

This is the latest example of increasing government hostility towards religion in America, and it's certainly among the most blatant.

Matt Young said: ArticleThe park, cabinet officials said in a letter, had evolved from a tourist attraction into an extension of the ministry activities of Answers in Genesis....

Mr. Ham says,

This is the latest example of increasing government hostility towards religion in America, and it's certainly among the most blatant.

And you can bet your sweet artichoke that if the government wanted to give tax breaks to a muslim organization, old Kenny boy would be the first one to scream about it. He doesn't mean government hostility towards religion, he means government hostility towards his religion. He is probably incapable of understanding the difference.

Oh, Ken knows that there are other religions. For instance, atheism is a religion, and so is naturalism and scientism. And he knows the difference between his religion and all those other religions, too: his religion is the true one.

The rest is simple. Because Ham's religion is the true one, the government should and must advance it, protect it, and provide for it. What else are governments for?

Matt Young said: Article in Louisville Courier-Journal. Nothing much new...

Anti-Christian groups objected to AiG’s statutory right to limit its hiring to people of the Christian faith, and to the content of the messages that will be presented at the Bible-themed park. Bowing to this pressure, state officials (including Gov. Beshear) announced a reversal on December 10, 2014.

Anti-Muslim groups tried to fool people into thinking that AiG had some kind of statutory right to limit its hiring to people of the Christian faith, and to the content of the messages that will be presented at the Bible-themed park. Bowing to this pressure, state officials (including Gov. Beshear) announced that the blatantly religious organization would get tax breaks, but now they have realized that this was all just a a scam and made a reversal on December 10, 2014.

Dave Luckett said: Oh, Ken knows that there are other religions. For instance, atheism is a religion, and so is naturalism and scientism. And he knows the difference between his religion and all those other religions, too: his religion is the true one. The rest is simple. Because Ham's religion is the true one, the government should and must advance it, protect it, and provide for it. What else are governments for?

To change the subject just slightly, I would like to propose a different reason for why old Hambo is suing KY: temper tantrum.

It was clear from the beginning that old Hambo was playing a shell game with this little adventure. Ark Encounters owned by Canyon Waters (or whatever it's called) controlled by AIG. Old Hambo wanted it both ways, government money and total control over the whole thing; total control being the most important, perhaps, essential part.

If old Hambo had just let the Ark Encounter fly on its own the scheme might have worked. But then his authoritarian side kicked in 100% and he was not going to give up control of his hiring requirements.

Fortunately (but unfortunately for old Hambo) the for-profit facade has been ripped off and it's plainly clear that the entire project is an extension of the AIG ministry and it's turtles all the way down. Of course, it always was, but now that he's claiming religious discrimination against a for-profit company, Ark Encounter, he's setting himself up to lose everything.

DS said: Why would you need help from the government? If you really did have the one true religion, god would be on your side and you wouldn't need any help. It's a self defeating tactic.

Doc Bill said: To change the subject just slightly, I would like to propose a different reason for why old Hambo is suing KY: temper tantrum.

eric said: I'm going with the "find a scapegoat for my failure" theory. When a project starts to fail, the blamestorming begins.

DS said: Why would you need help from the government? If you really did have the one true religion, god would be on your side and you wouldn't need any help. It's a self defeating tactic.

the underlying controversy isn’t limited to Kentucky. My colleague Laura Conaway alerted me to a related story this week out of Indiana, where the Indianapolis Star reported that the state Senate is “poised to allow some state contractors to discriminate in hiring based on religion.”

If the bill in Indiana is passed and signed into law, does that mean a business can demand that only non-religious and atheist folks be hired to work for them. Could they have prospective employees sign a statement of no belief that will be made available to other employees to insure that everybody understands each other to be declaring themselves nonbelievers; that there will be no dissembling sectarians attempting to sneak through the door? Could such a business fire someone who is religious?

Can the business discriminate against particular Christian sects; such as those kinds of sects that want to pass laws allowing religious discrimination and state sponsored proselytizing in public schools?

What would the religious groups in Indiana think of that? Would they like endless sectarian conflicts dominating everything in civil and business activities?

Where would the idiocy end? Quite probably in a state of continuous sectarian warfare and killing; just like the current situation in the Middle East.

These are stupid times.

eric said: No, we don't object to AiG's right to do either of those things. We object to Ark Park's right to do the first one (but not the second). Because you, Ken Ham and AiG, have told the government that Ark Park is a different corporate entity that obeys for-profit rules. Now, if you want to take that back, then Ark Park will be free to discriminate in hiring. But as long as you don't take it back, they are not free to discriminate in hiring.

eric said:

Doc Bill said: To change the subject just slightly, I would like to propose a different reason for why old Hambo is suing KY: temper tantrum.

With only half or less of the money he planned to raise for the project actually being raised - and a big chunk of that having to come from AiG rather than private investors - I'm going with the "find a scapegoat for my failure" theory. When a project starts to fail, the blamestorming begins.

Ah, the Money Maytag.

I thought about that, too, when the junk bonds were floated. I'm not above buying junk bonds but these set off all kinds of Kramer-bells and lights. No interest. Not likely to be redeemed. Only pays on profit from this horrible, boring boondoggle. There was NO INCENTIVE AT ALL to buy these bonds. In the twelve or so fear points it was clear you were going to lose your money.

Or were you?

Could you make an "investment" in which you money was actually parked someplace, then when the enterprise declared bankruptcy write off that "investment" only to have a substantial part of it quietly returned? I am not enough of an investment wizard to formulate such a scheme, but the Ark Encounter junk bonds were so perversely strange that there had to be something behind them, under the table, that made them worth the "investment."

Certainly, this recent high-profile drama leading to ultimate bankruptcy now seems scripted. Hambo wants to be taken down, but what is the money trail?

Interesting Doc, I wonder if Ark Park made some kind of stipulation that the "biggest" investors in the bonds would get their money back first, leaving the smaller investors in the lurch if things went south. Then the Ark Park could basically turn what ever money they have back over to their largest investor, AiG. I wouldn't put it past Ham to do something like this.

Could you make an “investment” in which you money was actually parked someplace, then when the enterprise declared bankruptcy write off that “investment”

only to have a substantial part of it quietly returned?

I am not enough of an investment wizard to formulate such a scheme,

but the Ark Encounter junk bonds were so perversely strange that there had to be something behind them, under the table, that made them worth the “investment.”

Well if the plan was really to commit tax fraud all along, the very dumbest thing you could do would be to sue the government over tax breaks, thus insuring ongoing scrutiny of your financial practices. It seems as if Kenny is bound and determined to lose everything and play the martyr card, so everyone will feel sorry for him after he gets what he deserves..

Mike Elzinga said: If the bill in Indiana is passed and signed into law, does that mean a business can demand that only non-religious and atheist folks be hired to work for them. Could they have prospective employees sign a statement of no belief that will be made available to other employees to insure that everybody understands each other to be declaring themselves nonbelievers; that there will be no dissembling sectarians attempting to sneak through the door? Could such a business fire someone who is religious? Can the business discriminate against particular Christian sects; such as those kinds of sects that want to pass laws allowing religious discrimination and state sponsored proselytizing in public schools? What would the religious groups in Indiana think of that? Would they like endless sectarian conflicts dominating everything in civil and business activities? Where would the idiocy end? Quite probably in a state of continuous sectarian warfare and killing; just like the current situation in the Middle East. These are stupid times.

DS said: Well if the plan was really to commit tax fraud all along, the very dumbest thing you could do would be to sue the government over tax breaks, thus insuring ongoing scrutiny of your financial practices.

callahanpb meant to say: I think it is easiest to understand Ken Ham by taking it at face value that he actually believes all the Noah stuff and believes that he is doing God's work by building the Ark Park.

According to a press release, they did it!

callahanpb said:

DS said: Well if the plan was really to commit tax fraud all along, the very dumbest thing you could do would be to sue the government over tax breaks, thus insuring ongoing scrutiny of your financial practices.

I think it is easiest to understand Ken Ham by taking it at face value that he actually believes all the Noah stuff and is doing God's work by building the Ark Park. Now that doesn't mean he can't be dishonest about his means of getting government funding or whether he discriminates in hiring. To him, none of those things really matter if he can get away with it. A big fallacy is to start with the notion "How can anyone capable of dressing themselves take Noah seriously?" and use that as a starting point to uncover the ulterior motives, which would then boil down to greed. It's tempting--I wouldn't be able to write the rhetorical question above if I didn't feel this temptation myself--but misses the point. Ham's means are dishonest, but I see no reason to doubt that his motives are roughly in line with what he claims.

harold said: And there are a lot of nitwits out there who think Kenny is a profit and will obey his angry orders.

So when he loses the lawsuit, which BS excuse is he going to go with?

A) You just didn't have enough faith.

B) God told me he doesn't wants me to build the thing anyway.

C) God told me to drop the park idea and get a new Mercedes, tax free of course.

D) The atheists were afraid that we would prove the thing could float!

E) All of the above.

Matt Young said: According to a press release, they did it!

Matt Young said: According to a press release, they did it!

Matt Young said: According to a press release, they did it!

IANAL but am I missing something? How is this not cut and dried?

1. AiG is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, which did not apply for tax rebates.

2. Ark Encounter is a limited liability company (LLC) solely owned and controlled by Crosswater Canyon, Inc., a 501(c)(3) organization that is in turn controlled by Answers in Genesis. (That's a direct copy from their website)

3. So AiG can discriminate in hiring, Crosswater Canyon can discriminate in hiring, Ark Encounter cannot.

4. AiG advertised one or more positions to work on Ark Encounter requiring a statement of faith.

5. The fact of #4 means Ark Encounter is breaking the law.

***

Maybe Ken isn't going to argue the 'small' issue that AiG can hire computer programmers (and others) to work on Ark Park planning without making AE ineligible for tax rebates. Maybe he's going after much bigger fish? With SCOTUS being so pro-business and pro-religion right now, could he challenging either (a) the general rule that non-profits cannot receive these developmental tax breaks, or (b) the general rule that for-profits can't religiously discriminate in hiring?

IOW maybe he's not going to argue the facts at all. Maybe he's going to admit exactly what he's doing and then claim the laws that forbid it are unconstitutional???

DS said: So when he loses the lawsuit, which BS excuse is he going to go with? A) You just didn't have enough faith. B) God told me he doesn't wants me to build the thing anyway. C) God told me to drop the park idea and get a new Mercedes, tax free of course. D) The atheists were afraid that we would prove the thing could float! E) All of the above.

Doc Bill said:

DS said: So when he loses the lawsuit, which BS excuse is he going to go with? A) You just didn't have enough faith. B) God told me he doesn't wants me to build the thing anyway. C) God told me to drop the park idea and get a new Mercedes, tax free of course. D) The atheists were afraid that we would prove the thing could float! E) All of the above.

This is my favorite question because it gets to the nub of the "follow the money" theme. I think the Ark Park was designed to go broke, intelligently like a fox so. On a deal like this where do the donations go?

harold said: Interesting thought. It is fairly rare for people to put together actual "designed to go broke" schemes in the style of The Producers. It is, on the other hand, very common for people to put together business plans for a business idea that is not that great...

Ergo, he can't be both non-profit and non-prophet at the same time.

Matt Young said: According to a press release, they did it!

Doc Bill said: This is my favorite question because it gets to the nub of the "follow the money" theme. I think the Ark Park was designed to go broke, intelligently like a fox so. On a deal like this where do the donations go?

alicejohn said: Unfortunately for Ham his greatest strength (conviction) is also is greatest weakness. He is a classic creationist. Creationist: "In my opinion, evolution is wrong and the earth is 6000 years old. Scientist: But the evidence of biology and geology make evolution and an old earth a fact." Creationist: "And that is your opinion." End of discussion. He is a close-minded, annoying person who can't be embarrassed and he does not have a pragmatic bone in his body.

Another myth is that the Ark Encounter should not receive the future sales tax rebate because it is allegedly a for-profit business. It is not. AiG's non-profit subsidiary, Crosswater Canyon, owns the Ark and it has been approved by the IRS as a non-profit.

Two good letters to the editor in yesterday's Lexington Herald-Leader, pointing out errors in Mark Looy's article -- in particular, that AIG, not Kentucky, has changed its position.

Matt Young said: Two good letters to the editor in yesterday's Lexington Herald-Leader, pointing out errors in Mark Looy's article -- in particular, that AIG, not Kentucky, has changed its position.

Another myth is that the Ark Encounter should not receive the future sales tax rebate because it is allegedly a for-profit business. It is not.

Matt Young said: Two good letters to the editor in yesterday's Lexington Herald-Leader, pointing out errors in Mark Looy's article -- in particular, that AIG, not Kentucky, has changed its position.

stevaroni said:

Matt Young said: Two good letters to the editor in yesterday's Lexington Herald-Leader, pointing out errors in Mark Looy's article -- in particular, that AIG, not Kentucky, has changed its position.

Amusingly juxtaposed with a couple of articles detailing how school budgets all over Kentucky have been taking horrendous hits because of how the terribly bad property tax collection system is starting to bog down under the weight of ever-wider exemptions and poor valuation models. The story about Walgreens arbitrarily cutting a check for only 60% of their tax bills for years because they don't agree with their assessed property values is a particularly lovely background tableaux for a discussion of whether a religious theme park needs an $18 million tax gift.

nobody has suggested that for-profit companies cannot receive tax breaks. Its always been the reverse: people stating that for-profit companies can receive them, not-for-profits cannot, and since Ark Encounter is now acting more like a not-for-profit, they cannot receive them.