ARK amusement park to get state tax incentive of $18 million >

[Retro Rob]

Nobody is saying an amusement park needs a basis in reality.

Understood.

But like I said (and like you seem to be diverting from for some reason) the bigger issue here is the employment criteria. Especially when the state says that they're applying the tax break specifically because this place will generate jobs.

You know, I read that they have a "Statement of Faith" (seems to be implying that you have to profess faith in their version of Christianity), so that does make it more of a Ministry than a Amusement Park.

I agree with you as far as hiring discrimination, but I should remind you that Mozilla forced its CEO to resign for donating to prop 8 and "supporting traditional marrige".

Just seems that some would rather to selectively denouce discriminatory practices (not speaking of you, however).

 

[ElFenix]

We do? When I hear news about oil I'm not hearing it being pumped out of Texas. Gulf maybe (But that is drying up) - but with fracking it is much more prone in other states.


Also FWIW -

For those that couldn't understand my post - I don't give 2 shits what the theme park is. The question is if the park will fill up. That remains to be seen. I'm not sure, but as much as people think atheism is climbing I'm seeing tons of people my age still going to church (which always bewilders me). We have the biggest church... like...ever... and it fills. So /shrug.

Obviously the state see's it as a business opportunity.

wut

By the end of this year, Texas' oil production could exceed the output of every OPEC country but Saudi Arabia.

The state's production, driven mainly by the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas and the Permian Basin in West Texas, will reach about 3.4 million barrels per day, propelling Texas past Iraq and Iran, said Greg Leveille, manager for technology program-unconventional reservoirs at ConocoPhillips.

Among non-OPEC countries, only Russia, the United States as a whole, China and Canada would exceed Texas' oil production, making the state the world's sixth-largest producer.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbbl_m.htm

http://www.eia.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/eia914/eia914.html

texas produces more than 1/3 of US crude, and more than 40% of US natural gas.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

wut

Well there you go.... Nope, haven't heard of Eagle Ford.

 

[schmuckley]

There's nothing wrong with a state promoting religion.If the state were to give a religious figure power because of his religion;That would be unconstitutional.

Just so you know;This country was founded on the Christian religion;That's why it tolerates all forms and trains of thought.Without that,you would probably not be allowed the latitude of free speech and thought that you have currently.

 

[Exophase]

I agree with you as far as hiring discrimination, but I should remind you that Mozilla forced its CEO to resign for donating to prop 8 and "supporting traditional marrige".

We're not talking about hiring discrimination in general here, or else we'd have a problem with all religious institutions with paid roles. The problem is with this company getting funding from public money.

 

[hal2kilo]

Because we have oil reserves? :hmm:

Funny, must be some coincidence.

 

[PokerGuy]

I have no problem with the State granting tax incentives to non religious endeavors in general.

So you're discarding logical reasoning and just going with your anti-religion bigotry as the reason why this should not be allowed. No problem then, that's your prerogative.

 

[alzan]

There's nothing wrong with a state promoting religion.If the state were to give a religious figure power because of his religion;That would be unconstitutional.

Just so you know;This country was founded on the Christian religion;That's why it tolerates all forms and trains of thought.Without that,you would probably not be allowed the latitude of free speech and thought that you have currently.

You are misinformed; the Founding Fathers had many diverse beliefs, some were even (gasp) atheists. And they codified free speech because of the edicts of King George of Great Britain, not because of the religion.

 

[PokerGuy]

Indications are the attendance at the Creation Museum has been steadily declining over the past several years. I think there is a legitimate question as to why and if further incentives should be granted to a failing enterprise.

Agreed, that is a perfectly legitimate question, one the people of Kentucky should ask: are our tax dollars being spent wisely (or in this case, incentives) to benefit our state in the long run? If the answer is "no", then don't do it. If the answer is "yes", then do it. I have no problem with that.

 

[alzan]

Understood.



You know, I read that they have a "Statement of Faith" (seems to be implying that you have to profess faith in their version of Christianity), so that does make it more of a Ministry than a Amusement Park.

I agree with you as far as hiring discrimination, but I should remind you that Mozilla forced its CEO to resign for donating to prop 8 and "supporting traditional marrige".

Just seems that some would rather to selectively denouce discriminatory practices (not speaking of you, however).

Apples to oranges; unless of course you have evidence that Mozilla's former CEO used taxpayer money to support prop. 8.

 

[Retro Rob]

Apples to oranges; unless of course you have evidence that Mozilla's former CEO used taxpayer money to support prop. 8.

Ah, so discrimination is OK as long as its not done to an employee of a public company.

 

[Victorian Gray]

There's nothing wrong with a state promoting religion.If the state were to give a religious figure power because of his religion;That would be unconstitutional.

Just so you know;This country was founded on the Christian religion;That's why it tolerates all forms and trains of thought.Without that,you would probably not be allowed the latitude of free speech and thought that you have currently.

You're an American it seems, how the hell can you not know the history of the founding of your own country?

 

[Fern]

Agreed, that is a perfectly legitimate question, one the people of Kentucky should ask: are our tax dollars being spent wisely (or in this case, incentives) to benefit our state in the long run? If the answer is "no", then don't do it. If the answer is "yes", then do it. I have no problem with that.

^^This^^

Fern

 

[ch33zw1z]

You're an American it seems, how the hell can you not know the history of the founding of your own country?

Religious peeps believe what they want to believe.

 

[ch33zw1z]

There's nothing wrong with a state promoting religion.If the state were to give a religious figure power because of his religion;That would be unconstitutional.

Just so you know;This country was founded on the Christian religion;That's why it tolerates all forms and trains of thought.Without that,you would probably not be allowed the latitude of free speech and thought that you have currently.

you certainly do love to prove your username valid.

 

[Exophase]

Interesting defense from Ken Ham:

https://answersingenesis.org/ministry-news/ark-encounter/challenge-americans-united-to-tell-truth/

So hey, he's not getting tax payer money, he's merely getting a tax credit in what he was supposed to spend on sales tax, which is a totally different thing right? Sounds like the same end result to me. Money that should be the state's is now his company's. Not really grasping the distinction here, except that Ham needs to have the money upfront first.

I love this part the most:

But as people who reject God as the absolute authority, their standard for what is truth is what they determine it to be. They essentially make up whatever they want.

You hear that? People who don't acknowledge the Christian God lie about everything.

 

[blankslate]

Might be worth it if it was based on the recent Noah film with Russel Crowe.


.....

 

[alzan]

Ah, so discrimination is OK as long as its not done to an employee of a public company.

So what you seem to be saying is that every board of directors that's ever fired one of their chief executives are being discriminatory (and that's discriminatory in a pejorative meaning, not discriminatory in a "I prefer Granny Smith apples to Fuji apples" way), and that that's somehow similar to a religious business/institution receiving state government tax incentives or tax abatements to push a particular religious view down not only it's employees throats but everyone who visits the "museum", never mind the state taxpayers themselves.

Wow, just wow.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Because we have oil reserves? :hmm:

As well as oil refineries and petroleum based chemical plants.

 

[justoh]

So what you seem to be saying is that every board of directors that's ever fired one of their chief executives are being discriminatory (and that's discriminatory in a pejorative meaning, not discriminatory in a "I prefer Granny Smith apples to Fuji apples" way), and that that's somehow similar to a religious business/institution receiving state government tax incentives or tax abatements to push a particular religious view down not only it's employees throats but everyone who visits the "museum", never mind the state taxpayers themselves.

Wow, just wow.

So what you seem to be saying (again) is that verbs are pronouns...

wow

just wow

 

[sandorski]

There's nothing wrong with a state promoting religion.If the state were to give a religious figure power because of his religion;That would be unconstitutional.

Just so you know;This country was founded on the Christian religion;That's why it tolerates all forms and trains of thought.Without that,you would probably not be allowed the latitude of free speech and thought that you have currently.

BS

 

[Retro Rob]

So what you seem to be saying is that every board of directors that's ever fired one of their chief executives are being discriminatory (and that's discriminatory in a pejorative meaning, not discriminatory in a "I prefer Granny Smith apples to Fuji apples" way), and that that's somehow similar to a religious business/institution receiving state government tax incentives or tax abatements to push a particular religious view down not only it's employees throats but everyone who visits the "museum", never mind the state taxpayers themselves.

Wow, just wow.

No, sir...what I am saying is that firing someone for supporting "traditional marrige" is the same thing as refusung to hire a gay person, or anyone who supports gay marrige.

 

[alzan]

No, sir...what I am saying is that firing someone for supporting "traditional marrige" is the same thing as refusung to hire a gay person, or anyone who supports gay marrige.

Not really. The firing of the Mozilla CEO was done for reasons of PR; his being fired was a decision that was likely agreed upon by himself and the board of directors for the good of Mozilla's public image. I would think that "publically" he was fired, privately he got a severance package as well as letter(s) of recommendation for any future employment and was most likely all neatly bound up in a non-disclosure agreement for the concerned parties.

Refusing to hire someone who is gay or who supports gay marriage is discriminatory but not actionable in most (all?) states; and unless the organization is a church or church-affiliated business the question would not even be asked.

Could your average Joe working for Amalgamated, Inc. be fired for vocally supporting SSM or coming out as gay? Probably but it would be very difficult to prove.

 

[Exophase]

I would think that "publically" he was fired, privately he got a severance package as well as letter(s) of recommendation for any future employment and was most likely all neatly bound up in a non-disclosure agreement for the concerned parties.

Publicly Brendan Eich wasn't fired to begin with. He resigned from his position and stated outright that it was because he couldn't be an effective leader in present circumstances. Probably due to all of the people boycotting Mozilla and calling for his resignation over this. There could have been pressure behind the scenes but this is all we have to go on, and it's not inconceivable that he would do this for the benefit of the company (as a good CEO would be inclined to do)

But this is still a total diversion, I don't know why we keep getting from hiring discrimination in general and discrimination from companies funded with tax breaks.

 

[alzan]

Publicly Brendan Eich wasn't fired to begin with. He resigned from his position and stated outright that it was because he couldn't be an effective leader in present circumstances. Probably due to all of the people boycotting Mozilla and calling for his resignation over this. There could have been pressure behind the scenes but this is all we have to go on, and it's not inconceivable that he would do this for the benefit of the company (as a good CEO would be inclined to do)

But this is still a total diversion, I don't know why we keep getting from hiring discrimination in general and discrimination from companies funded with tax breaks.

Good point; I had forgotten he resigned and was just going with RR's response.

It's all too easy to get distracted or go off topic with religious and political discussions due to peoples deep feelings; when topics revolve around both it's like throwing jet fuel on the fire.