AiG or the Ark Encounter versus Kentucky

Ark Encounter LLC is a for-profit corporation that is solely owned by the non-profit Crosswater Canyon Inc which is run by the non-profit Answers in Genesis (AiG). This is why AiG wrote a web release refering to AiG while the Kentucky Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet (TAHC) references to merely the Ark Encounter.  The TAHC only references AiG when in connection with Ark Encounter's actions.  AiG seems to see little distinction which is why they say things like:

By letter on Dec. 10, state officials told the theme park’s developer, Answers in Genesis (AiG), that the only way AiG could participate in the rebate program is if AiG would agree to two conditions: 1) waive its right to include a religious preference in hiring, and 2) affirm that it will tolerate no “proselytizing” at the theme park.

Here is what the TAHC actually wrote:

The first reason the Commonwealth can no longer grant incentives to this Project is the applicant’s changed position as it relates to the hiring of employees. In its original Tourism Development Agreement, Ark Encounter, LLC expressly agreed not to discriminate in hiring based on religion. However, it is now the applicant’s stated intention to discriminate in the hiring of employees for the Project based on religion…The Commonwealth’s position hasn’t changed. The applicant’s position has changed. The Commonwealth has not and does not provide incentives to any company that discriminates on the basis of religion and will not make an exception for Ark Encounter, LLC.

 Here is a portion on proselytizing:

Certainly, Ark Encounter has every right to change the nature of the project from a tourism attraction to a ministry. However, state tourism tax incentives cannot be used to fund religious indoctrination or otherwise be used to advance religion. The use of state incentives in this way violates the Separation of Church and State provisions of the Constitution and is therefore impermissible.

You can read the letter for yourself. Nowhere does the TAHC extend an ultimatum to AiG, but AiG does not seem to see it that way:

AiG has countered that the state’s new conditions are unlawful because it is well-established under both federal law (Title VII) and state law (KRS § 344.090) that religious organizations and entities like AiG are specifically permitted to utilize a religious preference in their hiring. Moreover, the government cannot show hostility toward religion or discriminate against persons or organizations who express religious viewpoints.

However that is not what AiG actually countered (pg 4):

Your legal counsel should readily acknowledge that it has long been established in federal law and state law that religious entities are permitted to give employment preference to members of their own religion. The federal law that prohibits discrimination in hiring practices, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically carves out an exception for churches and religious organizations, which are permitted to give employment preference to adherents of their own religion.

As noted above, Ark Encounter, LLC is clearly a Christian company with plainly religious attributes and ownership. It thus meets the legal standard for the Title VII exemption on religious preferences.

AiG did not counter about Title VII in reference to AiG.  They countered with Title VII in reference to the Ark Encounter, because this is the only argument would make rational sense.  When AiG is talking with the government, they maintain a distinction, but when they are talking to their own followers they maintain no distinction.  At best, one could argue that AiG is trying to dumb things down for their audience.  Clearly it is on the surface factually incorrect to say:

...state officials told the theme park’s developer, Answers in Genesis (AiG), that the only way AiG could participate in the rebate program is if AiG would agree to two conditions...

or

...AiG has countered that the state’s new conditions are unlawful because it is well-established under both federal law (Title VII) and state law (KRS § 344.090)...

In both AiG's letter and TAHC's letter the main conversation was about the Ark Encounter.  At best AiG could argue that technically the Ark Encounter has no employees and AiG runs Crosswater Canyon, so anyone dealing with Ark Encounter is actually dealing with AiG.  Until Ark Encounter has a person to answer the phones, they could be reduced to functionally the same company.  This is the best interpretation.  After all, they did provide both letters on their own website.

Then there is the worst interpretation:  AiG is intentionally trying to confuse their readers into thinking that TAHC wants AiG to start hiring Catholics and to stop proselytizing.  AiG obviously could try and educate their readers about the Title VII and for-profit companies, but for some reason they chose to confuse the issue.