Judge rules in favor of Ark Park

Posted 26 January 2016 by Matt Young

A Federal judge ruled yesterday that the Ark Park is entitled to sales tax incentives that had been denied by the state of Kentucky, according to an article by Dylan Lovan. Briefly, District Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove ruled that the state cannot exclude the Ark Park from receiving the tax incentive simply because the park has a religious purpose. Further, although Mr. Lovan does not note it, the judge opined that the Ark Park is within its rights to discriminate in employment on the basis of religion (and still receive the tax incentive), because it is clearly a religious organization. Americans United, in a blog post, called the ruling "radical" and argued that Kentucky would have had a good chance of winning on appeal, based on a 2004 Supreme Court decision, Locke vs. Davey, wherein the court gave states "discretion to exclude religious programs from otherwise neutral funding schemes." The ruling is unlikely to be appealed, according to the Associated Press, because the newly elected Republican governor is "pleased" with the decision.
_______
Thanks to Dan Phelps for the tip and for the transcript of the Judge's ruling.

34 Comments

Matt Young · 26 January 2016

AIG has posted the Judge's ruling here.

Mike Elzinga · 27 January 2016

Well, it's Kentucky; so what's new?

I'll bet that the judge won't receive any death threats like the ones Judge Jones received as a result ot the Dover ruling.

At least the Kentucky governor didn't lead-poison a bunch of kids over the objections of water quality experts

Ain't politics wonderful?

Just Bob · 27 January 2016

Hey, giving government money (or not taxing = same thing) to a business to aid it in its endeavors to only give jobs to people with the Right Religion... what could be wrong with that?

harold · 27 January 2016

cannot exclude the Ark Park from receiving the tax incentive simply because the park has a religious purpose

So all that "American Revolution" and "constitutional convention" stuff was basically a waste of time, it would seem. Ken Ham's personal religious preferences are favored by the government, and mine aren't. The only thing I can think of at this point is a boycott campaign. Contact the Kentucky tourism bureau and the governor, and make it clear that I won't visit any state that uses government funds to favor one religion over another.

DS · 27 January 2016

So, if a muslim started a Jihad museum,in Kentucky and refused to hire any non Muslims, the government would have no choice but to get them tax breaks. Good to know. I can hardly wait for that to happen. They will deserve every bit of it.

JimboK · 27 January 2016

DS said: So, if a muslim started a Jihad museum,in Kentucky and refused to hire any non Muslims, the government would have no choice but to get them tax breaks. Good to know. I can hardly wait for that to happen. They will deserve every bit of it.

If I had the money, I would like to build a "Allah's Heaven of Virgins Theme Park" right next to the Ark Encounter ^TMÂ©Â®. Or, how about "Howling Atheists' Carnival of Depravity"? Assuming my project fulfills the other criteria of the Kentucky Tourism Development Act(KTDA), does anyone really think I would get public support from the good people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky? Or receive KTDA tax incentives for these projects? Would I then be allowed to hire only Muslims or Atheists? I think the answer is obvious.

harold · 27 January 2016

Creationism stock report -

Investors are wary about Discovery Institute stock. Departure of key executives may suggest customer dissatisfaction. Investors will be watching financial statements closely.

Meanwhile, Ken Ham's stock is rising, as his audacious "blatantly demand tax breaks for the most undisguised sectarian propaganda" scheme has succeeded, contrary to analyst expectations. However, of course, he still needs to attract visitors to the Ark Park.

"What if the government favored a religion but nobody showed up?"

eric · 27 January 2016

JimboK said: Or, how about "Howling Atheists' Carnival of Depravity"?

You mean, Disneyworld?

Would I then be allowed to hire only Muslims or Atheists?

That appears to be what the judge is saying. On the plus side, AIUI the judge is clearly understanding Ark Encounters LLC to be a religious organization with a religious promotional purpose, not just some for-profit secular holding of AIG. So when the appeals case is heard, we can at least dispense with that fiction.

Klaus Werner Hellnick · 27 January 2016

DS said: So, if a muslim started a Jihad museum,in Kentucky and refused to hire any non Muslims, the government would have no choice but to get them tax breaks. Good to know. I can hardly wait for that to happen. They will deserve every bit of it.

Even better, a Mormon museum, with fake gold tablets and animatronic Jesus and Mayans.

DavidK · 27 January 2016

âWhat if the government favored a religion but nobody showed up?â

The state of KY would likely pass a law giving personal income tax breaks to any KY citizen that claimed to attend the Ark Park, and no evidence necessary to claim that tax break, e.g., ticket stubs.

DS · 27 January 2016

Don't forget, all this comes AFTER AIG had already promised NOT to discriminate in hiring. So even they know this is wrong. Once again they have broken their word, gotten caught lying and not had to pay for it. Yea religious folks is sure discriminated against in the good old US of A. Must be a sign of the end times don't ya know.

eric · 27 January 2016

DS said: Don't forget, all this comes AFTER AIG had already promised NOT to discriminate in hiring. So even they know this is wrong. Once again they have broken their word, gotten caught lying and not had to pay for it.

Well in this case, I don't think there would be a legal penalty for their lying. If they don't have to obey EEO restrictions (which is what the judge now says), but they publicly say they will (which is what AIG claimed earlier), and then they don't (which is what AIG actually did), the law probably doesn't care. Now, how Ham et al. will spin the story to make themselves look consistent and ethical when they were neither is a different question. I'm sure they'll try some sort of cockamamie PR announcement. Or maybe they'll just ignore their own history. "Hiring promise? What hiring promise?"

Just Bob · 27 January 2016

eric said: "Hiring promise? What hiring promise?"

"Religious test? What religious test? That was a trick quiz to see if job seekers are clever enough to guess the right answers. They can BE any religion; they just have to be smart enough to lie on our little quiz."

W. H. Heydt · 27 January 2016

eric said:
JimboK said: Or, how about "Howling Atheists' Carnival of Depravity"?
You mean, Disneyworld?
Would I then be allowed to hire only Muslims or Atheists?
That appears to be what the judge is saying. On the plus side, AIUI the judge is clearly understanding Ark Encounters LLC to be a religious organization with a religious promotional purpose, not just some for-profit secular holding of AIG. So when the appeals case is heard, we can at least dispense with that fiction.

Problem is....the new governor is not interested in appealing. No idea about the Kentucky AG. Who else has standing to get an appeal heard?

eric · 27 January 2016

W. H. Heydt said: Problem is....the new governor is not interested in appealing. No idea about the Kentucky AG. Who else has standing to get an appeal heard?

Yep googling shows that yesterday Bevin said the state will not appeal, so it's a dead issue. Though to answer your standing question hypothetically, IANAL but IIRC it was the Kentucky tourism board that denied the tax benefit while the former Governor just didn't interfere. So presumably the Kentucky tourism board could appeal, if they wanted to. Obviously now, they won't.

Just Bob · 27 January 2016

A Kentucky taxpayer wouldn't have standing?

Matt Young · 27 January 2016

IANAL (and do not even play one on TV), but the 3 defendants are "DON PARKINSON, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Kentucky Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet, MATT BEVIN, in his official capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and BOB STEWART in his individual capacity...." Governor Bevin and his appointee Mr. Parkinson are not about to appeal. For reasons that are somewhat murky to me, Mr. Stewart was sued individually, but the claims against him were dismissed. Merely being a taxpayer does not give you standing to initiate a suit, so I would assume that no one else has standing to appeal, but it would be interesting if someone with a license to practice law would comment.

FL · 29 January 2016

Haven't said anything so far on this topic, and I still don't have much to say now.

But I will offer this much:

"Congratulations to Ken Ham and AnswersInGenesis."

DS · 29 January 2016

FL said: Haven't said anything so far on this topic, and I still don't have much to say now. But I will offer this much: "Congratulations to Ken Ham and AnswersInGenesis." FL

Yea Floyd respects anyone who lies and cheats and steals. Just like the holey babble says.

phhht · 29 January 2016

FL said: Haven't said anything so far on this topic, and I still don't have much to say now. But I will offer this much: "Congratulations to Ken Ham and AnswersInGenesis."

What a gullible fool you are, Flawd. There was no flood. There was no ark. Those are fairy stories, Flawd, not news reports. Ken Ham is a huckster, and you are a fool to believe him.

Matt Young · 29 January 2016

Please resist pointless bickering.

Just Bob · 29 January 2016

Maybe Floyd would like to drop down to the thread below this, about rainbows. He could give us the whole meteorology and physics lowdown: Were there no rainbows before the flood? If not, explain how that could be. Do rainbows exist IN clouds, as the Bible says, or in clear air with falling rain, maybe with clouds in the background. Why did god need rainbows to remind HIMSELF not to make another genocidal flood?

cwj · 29 January 2016

So what happens if they deny employment to someone on the basis of religion now?
Would that person have standing for a new suit on essentially the same issue?

Henry J · 29 January 2016

cwj said: So what happens if they deny employment to someone on the basis of religion now? Would that person have standing for a new suit on essentially the same issue?

They could claim that a person dumb enough to want a job there wouldn't be competent.

gnome de net · 29 January 2016

cwj said: So what happens if they deny employment to someone on the basis of religion now? Would that person have standing for a new suit on essentially the same issue?

That has been suggested, but I don't remember where I read it.

Flint · 29 January 2016

I was interested to learn that this judge got his degree from the University of Kentucky, served for 7 years as chief of staff and legal counsel for a Republican congressman, and was then nominated for his current post by George Dubya Bush. Anybody wanna bet on his religious preferences?

JimboK · 30 January 2016

Flint said: I was interested to learn that this judge got his degree from the University of Kentucky, served for 7 years as chief of staff and legal counsel for a Republican congressman, and was then nominated for his current post by George Dubya Bush. Anybody wanna bet on his religious preferences?

It's also interesting to see Judge Van Tatenhove received his B.S. from Asbury College in 1982(now Asbury University). www.asbury.edu From their site's "Mission" tab: "The mission of Asbury University, as a Christian Liberal Arts University in the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition, is to equip men and women, through a commitment to academic excellence and spiritual vitality, for a lifetime of learning, leadership and service to the professions, society, the family and the Church, thereby preparing them to engage their cultures and advance the cause of Christ around the world." What a coincidence...

DS · 30 January 2016

So he's one of those damned activist judges that the fundamentalists are always ranting about. Maybe the'll stand up to him on this issue. No, I guess not. After all, "activist" means promotes stuff I don't like. Well he really screwed the pooch this time. I predict that it will come back to bite him in the ass at some point, maybe before financial harm is done to the taxpayers, maybe after.

harold · 31 January 2016

The basic message here is obvious, by the way -

For the time being, if you support science and basic freedom of expression, do NOT vote Republican.

Depending on who you are they may do something you like, but their platform includes anti-science favoritism of narrow sectarian authoritarianism.

We can lay 100% of the blame here on the Republican party. Ken Ham applied for tax favoritism for his sectarian, discriminating religious venture. Someone always will.

He got it because a Republican-appointed right wing authoritarian Christian fundamentalist judge wiped his a$$ with the constitution, and because a right wing Republican governor won't appeal. Period.

Put either an honest judge or a governor who isn't a right wing ideologue into the equation, and it doesn't happen.

And the party that has been taken over by right wing religious ideologues, albeit in a coalition with certain other elements, is...the Republican party.

There are no candidates in the current Republican presidential primary who do not implicitly or explicitly pander to religious authoritarians. They differ only in that they range from candidates whose major policy set is to pander to the religious right, to candidates who only pander to the religious right while emphasizing some other issues.

If you vote for them you have no right to complain when things like this happen.

Flint · 31 January 2016

Picking a favorable judge is SOP for any lawyer. The fact that there WAS a creationist judge in that jurisdiction probably had something to do with building the park there in the first place. Yeah, the people of Kentucky get to pay to subsidize what the judge admits right out is a religious venture, but they ARE getting the government they voted for, and what is representative democracy FOR if not that?

harold · 31 January 2016

Picking a favorable judge is SOP for any lawyer.

The issue here is that the judge was so "favorable" that he decided to ignore one of the most basic aspects of US law. If politicians from one unique party appoint judges who are pro-serial killer and will come up with nonsensical pseudo-legal arguments to free serial killers, and you vote for that party, don't complain later about freeing of serial killers by those judges. This is a deliberately exaggerated example, to make the point extra clear. There's a big difference between a judge who is sympathetic within the bounds of the law versus a judge who shows sympathy by ignoring the law.

The fact that there WAS a creationist judge in that jurisdiction probably had something to do with building the park there in the first place.

A judge can be as "creationist" as they want in private. The issue here is a judge who ignored long standing precedent because he favored an authoritarian agenda. At any rate, at least we seem to agree. If people hadn't been silly and voted for politicians who pander to authoritarian creationists, that judge might not have been appointed, and if he had, there would have been a governor who would appeal.

Yeah, the people of Kentucky get to pay to subsidize what the judge admits right out is a religious venture, but they ARE getting the government they voted for, and what is representative democracy FOR if not that?

The technical term for not having any underlying structure of legal rights and just letting whatever a temporary local majority wishes always hold the force of law is "mob rule". Political ID/creationists want illegal tax funding for authoritarian dogmatic science denial. One party supports that and the other doesn't. If you care about that issue, don't vote for the science denial party. If you choose to vote for the science denial party, don't pretend to care about that issue. I'm not aware of any pro-science far right party; they almost all have a habit of denying science in one way or another. That may suggest to some that something about far right agendas in general doesn't jibe with pragmatic analysis of what works for a human society. It does create a dilemma. What I recommend for that rare person who accepts evolution, HIV as the cause of AIDS, climatology, a round Earth that orbits the sun, the health consequences of tobacco, does not exaggerate the negative impact of water flouridation, and so on, but also prefers right wing policy in other ways, is to write themselves in when they go to vote. It's perfectly legal and your vote will be 100% in line with your fairly unique stance.

Just Bob · 1 February 2016

If you accept science but still vote Republican, at the very least you are an enabler (like the wife who covers for her alcoholic husband).

eric · 1 February 2016

Harold and Just Bob: I'm in an open-primary state, so it is definitely worth my while to consider which Republican may be the more science-friendly candidate. Depending on how February goes, I may find myself with the choice of upvoting Hilary to no useful effect or helping to decide which GOP candidate advances to the general election.

harold · 1 February 2016

eric said: Harold and Just Bob: I'm in an open-primary state, so it is definitely worth my while to consider which Republican may be the more science-friendly candidate. Depending on how February goes, I may find myself with the choice of upvoting Hilary to no useful effect or helping to decide which GOP candidate advances to the general election.

It's useless to try to distinguish, as far as science denial is concerned. Trump is a hard core climate change denier of the most extreme degree. He certainly isn't religious in a traditional sense but has pandered hard to Evangelical religious right voters and won them away from candidates like Carson. All the rest have equally bad records. The fact that I mentioned Donald Trump as the one who might most be hoped not to pander to ideological science denial tells you all you have to know. And he does pander to it. There is no "least harmful" Republican primary candidate this year, at least in terms of science denial. The Democratic primary is likely to be more interesting than expected...