Creation Corner
AiG to sue Kentucky for renege
Answers in Genesis (AiG) announced yesterday they would sue the State of Kentucky in federal court. The Kentucky tourism development board reneged on their earlier offer of tax incentives to Ark Encounter, LLC. Ark Encounter has started to build the first-ever full-sized replica of Noah’s Ark.
Kentucky reneges on earlier agreement
On December 10, 2014, the Kentucky Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet abruptly canceled the planned tax incentives. Ark Encounter, LLC had applied for and received abatements on sales-tax collection at its proposed Ark Encounter park for the first ten years of operation. Mike Wynn of the Courier-Journal filed this report the next day. The tourism board accused AiG and Ark Encounter of “chang[ing] its position on hiring policies” after the board first granted the abatements. They also, according to Wynn, said the park had changed from a tourist attraction to an “extension of the ministry” of AiG.
Mike Wynn offered no link to the letter. (Neither did AiG in their announcement yesterday.)
Ken Ham, head of AiG, said immediately he would consider legal action. Yesterday, in an e-mail to supporters, he confirmed: AiG will sue. They have retained legal counsel from Freedom Guard and from the Center for Religious Expression. Lawyers for both organizations will press the case for AiG pro bono. AiG also left this article on their own site, which they adapted from their press release.
In speaking to the press, Ken Ham emphasized he tried to resolve the issue with the State of Kentucky. He called the renege a “blatant…example of increasing government hostility toward religion.”
AiG makes its case
[ezadsense midpost]
The State acted after atheist organizations complained about the tax abatement grant. Many atheists “warned” Kentucky would make itself a laughingstock by granting tourist incentive to a monument to what they see as a just-so story for children. This, although in the past the tourism cabinet has granted such abatements to a brewery and a motor speedway.
Freedom Guard recently defended traditional marriage in Louisiana. The Center for Religious Expression recently filed suit in San Bernardino, Calif., on behalf of a man preaching on the street near two courthouses.
AiG is pressing a simple issue of discrimination. The hiring practices of AiG should make no difference to the tourism cabinet. Anyone who operates a tax-incentivized tourist attraction should have the right to hire whom they want and promote whatever message they want, without regard to religion or irreligion.
In addition, Governor Steve Bashear and the tourism secretary made no objection to “hiring policies” until the atheists complained. They knew, or should have known, Ark Encounter LLC would hire only those adhering to the AiG statement of faith. AiG has hired people at their Creation Museum on the same condition since the museum opened. No one has asked how the governor could have failed to notice this practice for four years.
Ark Encounter LLC continues to build its Noah’s Ark replica.
Reprinted from examiner.com
[ezadsense leadout]
Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.
-
Civilization4 days agoTime changes – Trump’s next target
-
Executive3 days agoWaste of the Day: $267 Million Spent on Fighting “Misinformation”
-
Civilization3 days agoIt was a false-flag pseudo-operation!
-
Civilization4 days agoYep…. Still the Smartest Guy in the Room
-
Executive4 days agoThe Paris Accords As “Climate Insurance”—Unaffordable and Unnecessary
-
Civilization3 days agoAmerica Is Ready for a New Chapter and Restoration of the American Dream
-
Civilization3 days agoThe U.S. Must Fortify Itself Against Future Mineral Export Bans
-
Clergy4 days agoStanding Alone With Christ!
The “deal” was as articles in July 2014 was usually cited as preliminary and did not have final approval, meaning it could be revoked or be found to be not be granted in the future and “reneging” was a disclosed possibility?
The point of facts relevant to the state’s side seems to be:
1) is there a state law that forbids companies receiving tax incentives if they have hiring policies that discriminate based on religion.
2) does the AiG park require specific religious beliefs in its hiring policies.
The answer to question 2 above is yes. That also holds for the Creation Museum. A fact with which the Kentucky Tourism Cabinet had, or should have, acquainted themselves.
The answer to question 1, I will guess, is no. Because if it were yes, Ken Ham would have sited Ark Encounter in Indiana and had done with it, and we would not now be having this argument.
People really need to learn what Amendment 1 states. It prohibits Congress from creating a State religion -such as the Church of England. The States can support religions all they want. After all, 12 of the 13 States (countries) had official State religions. And Amendment 14 does not effect this issue.
I have not found any place citing the first ammendment of the US constitution, so not sure why Donald brings that up.
I did find one report citing Section 5 of the Kentucky Constitution as the culprit for the state’s position and that has a Kentucky court precedent of it being interpreted mean that the state may not create benefits for the public that are available only to specific religious groups.
Even that interpretation seems flimsy in applying to this case, but obviously I am not a legal expert nor is any of this close to first-hand readings.
Well, I wouldn’t use the word “culprit” in this context. One cannot blame a State’s Constitution if some official misinterprets it.
I suspect you have correctly identified the basic problem. The State Constitution says the government may dispense no special favors to some, but not other, religious (or non-religious) groups. But that only means any given group may apply for a tourist-attraction startup benefit on the same basis as any other. It does not mean, as Gov. Bashear would now have us believe, that no religious group may have such a benefit, and that such benefits must go to secular businesses only.
I think friend “Donald” brings up the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to say if the government ever grants a benefit to any group, on any basis, and said group happens to be religious, the government has now “respected an establishment of religion.” A position even the Supreme Court, though it may play with the Constitution as if it were “a mere thing of wax” (see Jefferson’s reaction to the McCullough v. Maryland opinion), has never taken. Thus far.