Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

Hambo's not quite that dumb. As I noted above, he's trying to hire people for AIG (which can discriminate) and loan them to Ark Park.

Correct. The subterfuge came later. No no no no no no no. It is run by the Ark Park secular corporation, which has (nudge nudge wink wink) no legal relationship with AIG. If they wanted to discriminate in Ark Park hiring they could have run it under the umbrella of AIG, just as they do with the Creation Museum.But then Hambo wouldn't have been able to rake in those hoped-for profits.He made his choice. He must comply with the law. His feeble attempt to circumvent the law by hiring for AIG and then loaning to Ark Park didn't fool anybody.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

He should hire Christians that can point out that it is all about a fable and not reality and all based on fantasy. That the Biblical Floods never happened.

Going back to my answers to all the snarky worst constructions on Ham's motives -- Message 622 -- I see I left out probably his biggest motive for wanting all Christian employees, and that is his unfortunately possibly justified fear of getting a bunch of hostile people like you on his staff who seek to undermine his project. I can't see any reason why he would "want to discriminate" just for the sake of it, that makes no sense, he has to have a reason.HBD said of course he wouldn't be required to hire people who present the ark to the public in a negative light, but that could be what he's mostly worried about, and not for no good reason as I peruse this hate-Ham thread.I rather doubt there would be such a problem in reality, people would come because they want a job and maybe also because the ark should be a fun and interesting experience even for people who hate the Bible. But I could be wrong.I rather doubt he did anything underhanded in setting up a separate business in the Ark Encounter since the Ark Park is designed to be a tourist attraction, even more so I would suppose than the Creation Museum.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Underlying this justification is the assumption that non-Christians would be more likely to undermine his project and Christians wouldn't. I see no basis to assume either of these things. I've seen plenty of Christians express great dismay over the way Ham represents Christianity. And, if I needed a job and someone were willing to pay me a decent wage to sell hotdogs to credulous buffoons, the last thing I would do is badmouth my employer.If you actually think about these things, you'd realize that proffered justifications for discriminatory behavior like these are usually based on fallacious assumptions about the actions of people the discriminator doesn't like. That's part of the reason why it's important to fight this kind of discrimination, to correct those kinds of misconceptions.

He made his choice. For-profit that can't discriminate versus church that can discriminate.Of course there are some people he doesn't want to hire. But he made his choice and has to live with it.

I haven't seen any claims of underhanded setup of the Ark Encounter as a for-profit.The underhandedness came alter when he tried a transparent and obvious trick to avoid the law as it relates to for-profit institutions.

It might have made a difference if you'd read the rest of my post before responding.

People in business are always trying to maximize their opportunities and minimize their losses, that's just good business sense; you don't have to accuse Ham of doing it in an underhanded way. He's used to hiring Christians and if that's what he wants let's see if he can get a court to agree with him. The lawyer thinks he can. If not, as I said, I think any fears he may have of negative effects from nonChristian employees are probably unwarranted.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I read all of your post before responding, so obviously it didn't.

Well, I thought I was saying pretty much the same thing you are, but anyway I think we end up agreeing -- abe: except of course on your assessment of his motives. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why are you so reluctant to ascribe a discriminatory motive to him? You yourself have been unable to imagine a rational and legitimate business related reason; what does that leave other than discrimination? Is it because he professes to be a Christian?

As I said, I can't see any reason for him to discriminate just for the sake of discriminating, he has to have a good reason to prefer Christian employees and I gave some reasons I thought he might have. I don't think they're not "rational and legitimate" reasons even if I think he is probably wrong if the reason is worrying about the attitudes of nonChristians. He's not crazy, he's human like you and he wants the best for his business --AND his Christian ministry.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Does it really matter - at this stage - whether he has a "good" reason for discriminating ?Even if he does, it doesn't mean that he has a sound basis for his lawsuit.Can you tell me HOW he is being discriminated against because of his religion ? Or did the lawyer forget to mention that ?

Apparently some atheist organizations barraged the governor to rescind the approval of the rebate.