Giant Noah’s Ark Attraction In Kentucky Features Caged Dinosaurs

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I wonder how long it will take before someone twists this and there's a thread with a title similar to "PROOF of dinosaurs on the Ark!!!" And there's a picture of this ridiculousness.

Lol. Give it a year or so for us to forget then some winner on ATS will do it.

I really REALLY hope not, but can I can sadly see it happening.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
Would make an excellent movie though. Much better than snakes on a plane
.

'I HAVE HAD IT WITH THESE M'EFFING VELOCIRAPTORS ON THIS M'EFFING ARK!' - Noah L. Jackson

So THAT'S how all the dinos died out. You don't mess with an L. Jackson.

An L. Jackson????

You mean there's more than one?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
So THAT'S how all the dinos died out. You don't mess with an L. Jackson.

I think I know how the other animals died out:

The ark contains 132 bays for animals, each standing about 18 feet (5.5 m) high.

Which critters did Ken Hampered Intellect leave out?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

All the big ones?

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
Would make an excellent movie though. Much better than snakes on a plane
.

'I HAVE HAD IT WITH THESE M'EFFING VELOCIRAPTORS ON THIS M'EFFING ARK!' - Noah L. Jackson

So THAT'S how all the dinos died out. You don't mess with an L. Jackson.

An L. Jackson????

You mean there's more than one?

Of course. Unless he's a Time Lord. How else did he wipe out the Dinos on Noah's ark?

I just read that wiki and something shocking just stood out like a sore thumb...

They're tax exempt!

What the hell?! Why would a for profit organisation (ark encounters, llc), be allowed to have a theme park, that makes profit, tax exempt?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Which critters did Ken Hampered Intellect leave out?

How many species on Earth? About 8.7 million, new estimate says
Hmmm.... Let me get back to you on that one.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
I just read that wiki and something shocking just stood out like a sore thumb...

They're tax exempt!

What the hell?! Why would a for profit organisation (ark encounters, llc), be allowed to have a theme park, that makes profit, tax exempt?

Look what state its located in and you'll have your answer. Also this:
Beshear defends use of tax incentives for biblical theme park

originally posted by: TerryDon79
They're tax exempt!

What the hell?! Why would a for profit organisation (ark encounters, llc), be allowed to have a theme park, that makes profit, tax exempt?

And they had the municipality, country and state all allow them to use publically funded bonds for this religious-nutter boondoggle.

I want to open a giant ship in a bottle theme park and I want the goddamn bottle filled with actual rum funded by the taxpayers.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Sign me up!!! I will work the gates!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TerryDon79
I just read that wiki and something shocking just stood out like a sore thumb...

They're tax exempt!

What the hell?! Why would a for profit organisation (ark encounters, llc), be allowed to have a theme park, that makes profit, tax exempt?

Look what state its located in and you'll have your answer. Also this:
Beshear defends use of tax incentives for biblical theme park

That other thread said it would cost $37 million. The planning projected it would cost $150 million. That's over 3 times the amount.

Either way, a ####ing tax exempt theme park, that is a for-profit business, is wrong. Regardless of who, what or why.

originally posted by: Martin75
Sign me up!!! I will work the gates!

Similar to Ken Hamster I have very 'involved' interview process and subsequent 'belief statement' you need to sign.

Oh, and wait until you see the wenches outfits. Skimpy is an understatement. This will hopefully be an HR fiasco.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
OK I stole some Rum from Timely's anniversary thread....


I can pull off a wenches costume.....it is the menu that worries me!

a reply to: TerryDon79

DEFINITELY! This is clearly a violation of the 1st Amendment. Move over Sharia Law, Biblical Law is already here.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I'm only interested if there'll be a "swimming with the wenches" exhibit.

I would also accept being allowed to pet the wenches.

originally posted by: Martin75
...it is the menu that worries me!

The only menu items at my proposed theme park are booze since you need to be wasted to believe in what this other park is pitching.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I thought there was the whole "separation of church and state" thing in the states? Doesn't this "theme park" just spit in the eye of that?

As for the size, God could have shrunk the animals to fit on Noah’s ark

As for the time element he could have time travelled back in time to put them on the ark

Hey man give me another hit on that crack pipe

originally posted by: TerryDon79
I thought there was the whole "separation of church and state" thing in the states? Doesn't this "theme park" just spit in the eye of that?

It has been ruled on by a District Court judge to be Constitutional but that still leaves the Circuit and Supreme Courts if there is an appeal.

Personally I think the hiring practices are un-Constitutional but then again, I am not a religious nutbag.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Victory for AiG/Ark Encounter in Federal Court

In a victory for religious freedom in America, a federal court today issued a preliminary injunction against the Commonwealth of Kentucky for unlawfully blocking efforts by the Ark Encounter theme park developer, Answers in Genesis (“AiG”), to participate in the Kentucky Tourism Development Program. The federal court found “that the Commonwealth’s exclusion of AiG from participating in the program for the reasons stated – i.e., on the basis of AiG’s religious beliefs, purpose, mission, message, or conduct, is a violation of AiG’s rights under the First Amendment to the federal Constitution” (p. 70). The judge has ordered the state to move forward in processing AiG’s application for the available tax rebate incentives that would become effective after the Ark opens and is operating.

In his decision today, Judge Greg Van Tatenhove of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky also upheld AiG’s right to religious preferences in its hiring. In the last paragraph of his ruling, the judge declared that AiG may “utilize any Title VII exception for which it qualifies concerning the hiring of its personnel.” Earlier in his decision he stated, “Because AiG likely qualifies for the ministerial exception under Title VII, it can choose to hire people who adhere to certain religious beliefs while still being in compliance with state and federal law as agreed in the application and without their hiring practices being attributed to the Commonwealth.”
Court decision

The lawsuit, filed February 5, 2015, by AiG and its affiliates, Crosswater Canyon and Ark Encounter, accused the state’s previous tourism secretary, Bob Stewart, and the former governor, Steve Beshear, of engaging in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination “by wrongfully excluding the plaintiffs from participation in the Development Program simply because of who the plaintiffs are, what they believe, and how they express their beliefs.” These same officials previously granted approval and expressed enthusiastic support for the Noah’s Ark theme park as an economic driver and job creator for the state, until secularist groups began to exert their vocal opposition.

In his ruling, Judge Van Tatenhove posed and then answered the question, “If a tourist attraction, even one that as described here ‘advances religion,’ meets the neutral criteria for tax incentives offered by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, can the Commonwealth still deny the incentive for Establishment Clause reasons? This opinion is long but the answer to that question is short -- no” (p. 2).

America's definition of Separation of Church and State apparently gets a pass when the object in question is a job creator.