Answers in Genesis has announced today that they are suing the state of Kentucky for withdrawing a tax rebate. To make their case, they have released a long video featuring Ken Ham getting all the answers he wants from a lawyer wearing a greasy muskrat on his head.
The reason that Kentucky withdrew the tax exemption is that AiG refused to comply with state requirements. This was plainly stated by state representatives; they expected this “theme park”/”entertainment center” to abide by the same rules as any other commercial enterprise in the state.
We expect any entity that accepts state incentives not to discriminate on any basis in hiring. While the leaders of Ark Encounter had previously agreed not to discriminate in hiring based on religion, they now refuse to make that commitment and it has become apparent that they do intend to use religious beliefs as a litmus test for hiring decisions. For that reason, we cannot proceed with the tourism incentive application for the Ark Encounter project.
AiG’s defense rests on two points that were made repeatedly in the video. They claim that this is an act of discrimination against a religious organization because they are a religious organization, which is nonsense. Governor Beshear was practically frothing at the mouth in his eagerness to throw money at AiG when it was first proposed; he wanted to promote this so-called employment opportunity.
Their other point, even more frequently repeated, is that it’s not fair, that this program of tax incentives was an invitation to all businesses to apply, and they can’t discriminate against a religious organization. The lawyer said versions of this multiple times, even in response to a quote of the paragraph stating the state’s objections above:
It’s very well established in federal and state law that religious organizations get to be treated just like any other in a program like this.
Yes. They get to be treated like any other organization, which means that they also have to follow the same rules as any other organization. The problem is that they want a special privilege to avoid following some of the rules, so that they can discriminate in hiring. Stating like a mantra that they get to be treated the same as any other organization doesn’t sway me at all, because they are specifically demanding to not be treated the same.
There are rules. You want money from the government, you have to follow the government’s rules. Render unto Caesar, etc. Demanding exemptions isn’t an example of being treated equally…what next? Will you demand that the “museum” cafe be exempted from rules about employees washing their hands, because the Bible says nothing about germ theory?
“Will you demand that the “museum” cafe be exempted from rules about employees washing their hands, because the Bible says nothing about germ theory?”
Now you’ve done it…
Sorry, I got completely distracted by Tillis:
What. An. Idiot.
I think this is a brilliant idea, but I would like to extend it to criminal law. I think that I, as a private citizen, should be allowed to opt out of pesky infringements on my personal liberty as long as I indicate through proper disclosure–you know, one of those little public record notices. I could say: “I, [legal name] announce my intent to become a home burglar as of [date] and opt out of all laws and regulations prohibiting this endeavor.” This would free up valuable police resources that would otherwise be needed to monitor my activities. I’m sure the rest would just sort itself out through the magic of the free market.
Sure, all you should have to do is post a sign like “Irish and Jews need not apply” or “Whites only” and everything should be fine and legal.
Hey Ken Ham, I hear if you declare yourself a sovereign citizen you can make any ruling go your way
re @2:
So, everything is fine by him, as long as they declare it, so their business can be boycotted? His “hypothesis” sounds straight from Rand, “Markets are best regulated by their customers. Let McD’s use any meat they want in their hamburgers, just label the burgers (explicitly) and customers will not buy the icky ones.” umm, so he’s sayin, this here Starbucks can disregard the “wash hands” rule, as long as they declare it on the storefront, so potential customers can say, “Yuk, next coffee shop, not this one. Let’s find one that washes their hands.”
But back to the topic: where’s he going with this Randism? That AIG can discriminate, as long as they say so on their billboards and adverts? So, Tillis: “YUCK”.
Why am I not surprised. And of course, Ham now has more reason to ask for donations from outraged followers.
BTW, Ham doesn’t look particularly healthy in that video. His appearance reminds me of Steve Jobs a few years before his death.
Paul BC @ 3:
Ah, you want the Thieves’ Guild. It’s in Ankh-Morpork.
I couldn’t listen beyond the first few seconds where Ham made it clear he thinks denial of tax beaks to a discriminatory group is an attack on freedom of religion.
what is it with people like this that they do not seem to see that they “can’t have their cake and eat it to”
uncle frogy
But do you really think they believe they have a case? I, at least, suspect that they know the case will be thrown out without being too costly for them, but that it will also be an excellent opportunity to get media coverage, make some noise and rile up their base.
Caine #8:
It’s possible that there might be a less hard-to-get-to branch.
@unclefrogy #10:
Because, at heart, they’re crooks.
It’s nice to get the twistingness of the religious equivalent of thought right out there on record.
AIG wouldn’t have to advertise that they discriminate, because everyone knows they are a religious organization.
@8: Actually, it’s much easier than that. All you have to do is add odd-looking punctuation to your name and spell it in red ink (something like that — ask our friend Terry Dean (comma) Nemmers).
Can I opt out of the regulation requiring me to disclose the fact I’m opting out of a regulation?
The title reminded me of a discussion I had in high school when, expressing my distaste for racism, a classmate of mine accused me of hypocrisy because I was apparently being “a racist against racists!”. Yea…. wasn’t much of an argument back then either….
Are you a bigot if you resist bigotry? Is this a domain to apply A Critique of Pure Tolerance?
@16 victory is assured. You win 5 internets.
Precisely. That’s the whole case in a nutshell. They think it’s so unfair that they’re treated the same as everyone else.
Ah, Kenneth Ham.
A few years back I was writing a chapter (for my edited book Qualitative Mathematics for the Social Sciences—don’t ask) on the role of logic in mathematical modeling (and the role of various more or less formal logics as mathematical models of reasoning in various domains of thought and practice). One section of the chapter is devoted to a (non-mathematical) proof that “The prevailing informal logic in the domain of mathematical practice is, in fact, eisegesis of the exoteric.” To set up the proof, I had to go into the usage histories of two pairs of words: “exegesis” and “eisegesis”, and “esoteric” and “exoteric”. Researching the usage history of “eisegesis” (defined in the OED as “The interpretation of a word or passage (of the Scriptures) by reading into it one’s own ideas”), I came across a smarmy little article by Ham, Eisegesis: A Genesis virus, from which I extracted the usage example “‘The Eisegesis Virus’ [. . .] has been found responsible for the ‘death’ of many church members.” And here we find him and his lawyers trying a bit of eisegesis on the statues of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Bless their hearts!
Here, by the way, is the outline of my proof.
(The arguments for “the correspondingly numbered sub-claims of (C)” are inspired by, and contain much material quoted from, Jody Azzouni’s essay How and why mathematics is unique as a social practice.)
Oh, of course the OED’s parenthetical “(of the Scriptures)” doesn’t apply when I’m using the word “eisegesis” (and particularly not when I’m applying it to mathematics). The Scriptures are the Devil’s, let him keep them.
Grrrh. Statutes, not statues. (I guess eisegesis of a statue would be iconoclasm?)
it’s like you’re compelling me to watch this against my better judgement.
does the video document the latest forays of Ken Ham into the world of piglet fucking?
..because we all know what a piglet fucker Ken Ham is.
(I love how google will inevitably pick up that reference … go ahead, see how well we have done with it over the last few years)
Sure you can, rabbitscribe, but you must disclose your intent to opt out of the requirement to disclose your original option. You are allowed as many regressions as you have time and resources to disclose your serial opt-outs, which means there will be a turtle at the bottom of the stack.
“Everyone should be treated equally and given equal dignity in that regard.”
Wow. Just wow. He means they have a equal right to discriminate.
And so AIG (and the ark park) will actively thrash and drown in a sea of legalese rather than quietly sinking into obscurity as their attendance continues to drop.
This may actually be a ‘corporate suicide’ as a method to slink away from obligations.
@ChristineRose- no he means that they have a special right to discriminate.
It’s all a presuppositional argument, just like Hamikin’s fallacious belief in the inerrancy of his babble.
Hamikin’s presumes he can do anything he wants for religious reasons. He should talk to Kent Hovind about that….
Well, now you’ve done it, PZ! They heard you after all! Only the god invoked isn’t grumpy old Jehovah, but the benevolent, invisible hand of the free market: GOP senator: Forcing food workers to wash hands in bathroom not necessary.
Have we actually gotten to the point where we have but to voice a stupidity aloud, and some clown from the GOP rushes to endorse it?
Of course, should you contract a disease at one of the places that doesn’t require hygene protocols to be followed, you cannot sue the company in question, because you clearly knew the risk when you bought the product, right? In case of a mass epidemic, the public will pick up the tab.
It’s Ironic that the ‘freedom of religion’ clause also forbids favoring any one religion over any others. The whole premise of tax breaks in the first place was illegal.
“Can I opt out of the regulation requiring me to disclose the fact I’m opting out of a regulation?”
Apply to the Department of Redundancy Department.
That’s why you should never shake the Invisible Hand, abelundercity. You never know where it’s been.
abelundercity, #31
I wonder if the senator wouldn’t mind his doctor following the same policy.
You won’t really know the extent of the lack of cleanliness and hygiene until you visit the facilities and see for yourself.
Arseholes Imitating Genius needs a crack legal team for their lawsuit. I suggest Larry Klayman, Mat Staver, and Orly Taitz. However, a special courtroom will have to be built to safely contain that much concentrated stoooopid.
@Saad #36:
Would it really matter if his proctologist was a bit hands-on? After all, rubber gloves, alcohol gel, etc, costs money. Clearly these are cost-savings which would trickle-down to the great benefit of every single one of us.
No, no, it’s under Riften — look, just go talk to Brynjolf.