Kentucky drops tax incentives for Ark Encounter

Notice the use of the Hobby Lobby ruling as support for their demand to be able to discriminate based on religion.

Rulings are based on previous rulings, so that's not surprising.

The entertaining thing, as usual, are the comments following the article. Sheesh.

Yep, that ruling set an awfully dangerous precedent.

Thankfully, the Satanic Temple is fighting the good fight.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/satanists-troll...on/375268/

Yeah... that's an ugly can of worms. Still, the separation of church and state seems to trump a specific case like that, in my eyes, because the court has applied it to state law before.

However ... it is readily apparent that the project has evolved from a tourist attraction to an extension of AIG's ministry that will no longer permit the commonwealth to grant the project tourism development incentives.

What a deliciously ironic statement. I mean, if evolution isn't real, one could argue that it has always been an extension of AIG's ministry!

IMO (always willing to be wrong) - this is somewhat a different situation than Hobby Lobby in that HL is refusing to pay for current employees to obtain health insurance policies that contain coverage for birth control. To me, that's illegal, but I'm not on the SCOTUS bench and there's some "wiggle room" in there regardless of how abhorrent I find it.

The Ark Encounter folks are discriminating in their hiring practices. There is no wiggle room there....you can't do that...period.

It's my understanding that the Hobby Lobby case was about the company not wanting to pay for what it believes to be abortifacients, that is, medicines and devices the company claims end pregnancies; according to scientists hither and yon, the medicines and devices in question prevent pregnancies rather than end them. (Also: there are some (myself included) who find Hobby Lobby's values a bit questionable, considering they've invested in the very companies that make the products they claim to find contrary to their beliefs.)

^ and ^^ , you're both correct, different situation, but the churches are using it a) to get a stupid or like minded judge to go along; and b) to further perpetuate the victimhood meme and thus drum up (much needed) dollars for their venture.

According to the medical professionals, "pregnant" is when a fertilized egg successfully implants on the lining of the uterine wall (for a non-ectopic pregnancy). According to those who consider the drugs in question to be "abortifacients," pregnancy is achieved at fertilization (even if the resulting embryo is non-viable).

I tried desperately to not say anything that could be conceived (wink) as taking sides in the debate - just trying to clarify the, ummm, positions.

RCMAC said:

The entertaining thing, as usual, are the comments following the article. Sheesh.

I love that part of these articles. I love to read through them. I just sit there like:

I think the lawsuit is a waste of time. That is, unless they think the publicity will help them get more private donations as a result.

If the AIG project is deemed a ministry by the state to prevent tax incentives... Can AIG shelter future profits via religious tax exemption?

This is above my legal knowledge... But I wonder if the state MIGHT be setting a legal foundation for AIG to shelter future tax liabilities...?