Reply With Quote
a tax break is not a "fundamental right".
I'm leaning no but I'm thinking he might have a slightly legitimate gripe.Last month, Kentucky’s tourism board announced that the Noah’s Ark park wouldn’t be eligible for an $18 million tourism tax break because Answers In Genesis intends to use the site to proseletize and refuses to promise not to discriminate based on religion in its hiring. The board noted that “[s]tate tourism tax incentives cannot be used to fund religious indoctrination or otherwise be used to advance religion," but Ham cried persecution, complaining that Kentucky had violated his “fundamental rights” by witholding the tax break. -
See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten....g9a4QM0g.dpuf
a tax break is not a "fundamental right".
he's free to build it on his own dime
Courts have rules that churches getting tax exempt status is a fundamental right. Not sure if he's arguing that he's a church though.
"Ham cried persecution"
that's automatic with these venal Bible humpers.
I'm pretty sure a "tourist tax break" is different than being a 401 non profit
Yeah it looks like this is a state amusement park tax break issue and has zero to do with their tax status.
They apparently were initially granted the breaks but were denied when it became known that they were going to discriminate in their hiring practices based on religious background.
lol Kentucky
The issue is whether or not he intends to discriminate based on religion. Can't give public funds to people who do.
The only people allowed to discriminate in hiring based on religion are actual churches. This is obviously a for-profit endeavor, and can't get a "church" exemption.
Ken Ham: Government Persecuting Us By Not Providing Taxpayer Funding To Creationist Theme Park
Creationist leader Ken Ham is incensed that the state of Kentucky is supposedly abridging his organization’s “fundamental rights” by declining to provide around $18 million in tax incentives to his Noah’s Ark theme park. The park is a planned addition to Ham’s Creation Museum and is intended to be, according to Ham, “one of the greatest evangelist outreaches of our day.”
Since Ham’s group plans to discriminate on the basis of religion in its hiring practices, it is no surprise that it won’t get public funds. But Ham claims that he has a “right” to receive taxpayer money and has filed a lawsuit against Kentucky, insisting that his organization, Answers in Genesis, is the real victim of discrimination.
He took his case to “Washington Watch” yesterday, where he told host Tony Perkins that Kentucky’s decision somehow violates his organization's right to the freedom of speech: “Anyone who wants to have freedom of speech in this nation, freedom of religion, free exercise of religion, needs to stand with us as we do this because that is what we are standing for.”
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ken-ham-government-persecuting-us-not-providing-taxpayer-funding-creationist-theme-park
No he does not deserve tax breaks. that would be stupid.
these ing Christian Bible humpers, evangelists think they are EN LED to tax payer money.
they should get their Christians to pay for their own silly fantasy land.
So true TSA. So true.
TB
Still thinking about me? Weird.
well played.
Big point is that Ham wants to be a religious organization, able to reject people on the basis of faith... but still wants the handout from the government, which has a cons utional obligation not to give him funds if he does that.
Ham is a foreigner with no respect for the US cons ution, or our traditions. He just wants the cash.
Yet another example of a topic that has so many levels of government head scratching. What part of the economy/society to subsidize/give tax breaks/fund in order to create a "healthy" society?
Does the great boots think San Antonio tax payers should fund a little bit of the San Antonio Sympony's costs? Public Libraries? Parks? Not everyone in San Antonio uses these...
How about the State and roads? Some clearly benefit business, but the public at large does use them. Where do we build that exit ramp; what land owner just struck it rich due to highway traffic coming off?
"What part of the economy/society to subsidize/give tax breaks/fund in order to create a "healthy" society"
straw man. The questions are LEGAL separation of church and state, enforcement of non-discrimination LAW.
SA symphony, libraries, are non-profit, and violate no laws. If SA people don't want them, then elect politicians running on platforms to kill them.
roads are a non-profit public utility. If people don't want roads, then elect politicians running on platforms to kill them.
pgarden is VERY confused.
btw, I don't want my taxpayer dollars financing $700B/year MIC, nor Iraq, Afghanistan wars, nor US black ops in 170 countries, but there are no politicians presented who will stop all that Imperial and corporate welfare. Nor do I want my property taxes handed to the ty, discriminating Christian charters schools, non-profits that out-source the bulk of their operations to FOR-profit companies.
Now for the slappn.
The OP question is obviously a slam dunk. Republicans do exactly the same things when talking about funding, science, for example. The strategy is to take the most obvious case of misuse of funding/tax cuts/subsidies and present this as staus quo.
The LARGER question, which I presented, is that governments decide what parts of a working society should be funded, etc... There is no strawman, it's a very pertinent, legitimate dilemma. But because you are so caught up in biased thought, you can't see the bigger picture. The non profit part is obvious, yet abused.
Roads to South Texas fracking rigs should be funded by the public because the public uses some of these roads on occasion? The roads torn up by fracking trucks through small towns should be rebuilt by public funds because they are mainly used by the town?
Honestly boots, your haze of hate prohibits you from seeing larger questions. Elected officials often do not even state platforms concerning specific situations that arise. Cop out.
So what about the Symphony boots? You want 1/12 of a penny tax to keep it alive? Do you think any part of government should be involved in funding cultural aspects of a society? On and on...
so uh..is that a yes or a no?
A huge no. Really big font no.
honestly, pgarden, you're TOTALLY full of and confused.
taxpayer roads torn up by incremental heavy traffic to support fracking should be paid by the "users", but this is oily, corrupt TX so taxpayers are at BigOil's mercy and eat all BigOil's external costs, which includes depleted, poisoned ground water and air.
this is gerrymandered, corrupt Kock-ified/VRWC TX, so of course candidates won't run on "make BigOil pay"
You posted roads were a non profit public utility? And now you want big oil to pay... Which I happen to agree with.
But You pick and choose based on your political preferences.
So what about govt. paying for cultural projects? Many people think this should be privately funded unless it fits their politics. War memorials, old Civil war mansions, Iconic architecture, historic art museums...
But of course this is all so easy for you.
I pick and choose AGAINST all the VRWC/Repug/tea bagger ing up America.
where have I said the mother frackers shouldn't pay for tearing up tax payers' roads?
US tax code encourages private donations to non-profits like cultural orgs, aka, tax expenditures (by taxpayers).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
