Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

Faith writes:As I said, I can't see any reason for him to discriminate just for the sake of discriminating,

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

Do you really think that they would openly admit that the lawsuit is baseless ?

Any actual evidence of that? Or is this another unwarranted assumption

AiG tried -- unsuccessfully -- to resolve the matter with the state before heading to the courts. Now, after exhausting all of his options, Ham is suing the state for singling out the religious group for discrimination. "The state granted its preliminary approval for the incentive. Only after the atheist groups objected and publicly attacked the state's preliminary approval, did the state renege on its commitment," Ham explained. "Our organization spent many months attempting to reason with state officials so that this lawsuit would not be necessary. However, the state was so insistent on treating our religious entity as a second-class citizen that we were simply left with no alternative but to proceed to court. This is that latest example of increasing government hostility toward religion in America, and it's certainly among the most blatant." Mike Johnson, chief counsel of Freedom Guard, is representing the group. Like us, he thinks the state is setting a dangerous and unlawful precedent.Constitutional questions aside, with as many as 700,000 people expected at the Ark each year, the benefits for Kentucky far outweigh any perceived slights in hiring policy. Leaders created these tax breaks as a way to bring more people to the state -- and now that one organization is actively trying, they're being told no because of their religious orientation. And, as we've seen with frightening frequency, politicians like Beshear (either of their own accord or under the threat of legal action from atheists) are telling Christians that surrendering their beliefs is the price of doing business.

And you chose to believe Ham, despite the fact that his statement is filled with known lies.

"The state granted its preliminary approval for the incentive. Only after the atheist groups objected and publicly attacked the state's preliminary approval, did the state renege on its commitment," Ham explained. "Our organization spent many months attempting to reason with state officials so that this lawsuit would not be necessary. However, the state was so insistent on treating our religious entity as a second-class citizen that we were simply left with no alternative but to proceed to court. This is that latest example of increasing government hostility toward religion in America, and it's certainly among the most blatant."

Yes, it is written about Ham, but the only evidence supporting your assumption that atheist groups were behind it is a quote from Ham.

We know for a fact that the state isn't treating AIG any differently from any other business seeking this kind of exemption, yet Ham insists it's being treated like a second class citizen. He claims it's an example of hostility toward religion, and we know it has nothing to do with religion. He implies that the state changed its stance on the exemption because groups objected, but we know that the reason the state denied the exemption is because Ham reneged on his previous promise that the park wouldn't discriminate in hiring based on religion.

These are all lies from Ham, but you still believe his claim, unsupported by any evidence, that it was atheist groups that pressured the state.