Will the Ark Encounter be exempt from the Americans with Disabilities Act?

Update 12-31-14 After rereading the section of North Carolina law, I have decided that it did not claim what I thought it did.  For readability, I just deleted the argument that I made using it.

I am still trying to find a statute that requires that "religious organizations" be non-profits.  So far it seems to me to be more of a recommendation than a requirement. 

However Answers in Genesis's claim that the Ark Encounter LLC is a religious organization may also have more consequences than whether or not they decide to not hire Catholics or Episcopalians as life guards.   "Religious organizations" are exempt from the Americans with Disabilities Act.

SEC. 307. EXEMPTIONS FOR PRIVATE CLUBS AND RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.

The provisions of this title shall not apply to private clubs or establishments exempted from coverage under title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000-a(e)) or to religious organizations or entities controlled by religious organizations, including places of worship.

Maybe the ADA should be the next line of questioning that AiG receives.  I am still waiting on this question:

So you say that Kentucky wants you to hire people who aren't Christians, but is it not true that most people in Christian sects like Catholicism and Episcopalianism would not be allowed to work at your park?

Citations please II

This December, I have written a few blogs on the Ark Encounter controversy.

AiG or the Ark Encounter versus Kentucky

A couple of more points on the Ark Encounter

Citations please

Last night, I started to examine Ken Ham's claim which had one of it's most recent iteration in a video he posted to facebook. 

We even looked into building in Indiana, but Kentucky’s incentive encouraged us to build here. Yet most secular bloggers and many in the media would have you believe that we are asking the state for money to complete the Ark. So let me say again, that’s simply not true.

I am at a lost to find secular bloggers who are saying this.  At best, they are arguing like Ham himself that the tax incentives would offset the creation of the park.  I cited five secular bloggers that are not claiming this.  These were not low level no names, they were some of the main bloggers arguing against Ham on this issue.  Two of them, PZ Myers and Dan Arel have gotten personal responses from Ham.  Ham knows that at least these two are not making this claim.

I also called into question, Ham extrapolating a particular meaning from an infinitive used by Maddow when he used the same infinitive in his recent video.  Infinitives can have multiple meanings depending on the context.  For some reason, Ham assumes an interpretation that makes Maddow's statement false, when most interpretations would make the statement true.

Well, it is time to add another secular blogger that is not claiming that the Ark Encounter is "asking the state for money to complete the Ark."  The Sensuous Curmudgeon has written a December 18, 2014 blog, Is Opposing Ken Ham’s Tax Breaks Anti-God? on Ham's criticism, Lexington Herald versus God!, of a recent editorial in the Lexington-Herald, Few questions for Answers in Genesis. The Sensuous Curmudgeon wrote:

That newspaper has previously opposed tax benefits for Hambo’s new theme park — see Problem for Ken Ham’s Ark Park? That was back in August, before Hambo was officially notified that the state wouldn’t provide sales tax rebates for his Ark project.

 So the number is up to six which means Ham must provide seven to support his claim.  However Ham's line of evidence is found wanting. He questions whether tax incentives are "tax breaks".  He even parses infinitives for the worst possible interpretations.

The Sensuous Curmudgeon does a great job discussing Ham's over reaction (with even an exclamation mark) to the Lexington-Herald editorial.  He did not deal though with Ham's citation of someone in the media claiming the Ark Encounter "is asking the state for money to complete the Ark", so I will deal with it here.

Ham starts out claiming that the Lexington-Herald "[f]or years, it has spread untruths and misleading information about Answers in Genesis and our life-size Noah’s Ark project."  He then begins the next paragraph:

I suggest that the editors of the Herald-Leader have an anti-Christian agenda. It has resulted in inaccuracies in its stories and editorials concerning the Ark project.

 In the third paragraph, he triples down.

In a recent typical anti-Christian editorial against the work of AiG, we read considerable misinformation and downright untruths. Actually, I believe it’s clear that the editors are really shaking their fist at God.

OK, so he is claiming that the editorial is saying things that are so untrue that they are "shaking their fist at God." What are these untruths?  Well he cites two examples from the editorial which he criticizes by specifically using the word true ("not true" and "doesn't tell the truth here").

Perhaps Answers in Genesis should give up thanking God that intolerant liberals “can’t sink this ship,” and ask the deity instead whether it can be built without more government handouts.

Ham does not quibble over whether or not these tax incentives are "government handouts".  He does argue that "[t]his certainly implies that AiG has already received government funding to build the Ark."  Even for Ham, he can only claim that this "implies" this falsehood.  It only does if you take the worst interpretation.

Ham also accuses this point as being untrue.

Since the Ark park would rely on such secularists [sic] services as highways, sewer systems, and police and fire protection to attract and accommodate its visitors, the $18.25 million in taxes it wouldn’t pay to support those services would fall on other taxpayers.

 Ham's response is strange.  He argues that this is untrue, because the rebate "would [only] be given is if the park is operational and is having a positive economic impact, bringing significant dollars into the state." Ham is right, but he is beside the point.  The point is the rebated sales tax would not go to fund  "highways, sewer systems, and police and fire protection to attract and accommodate its visitors".  Since Ham is not funding them as much as he would, someone else would need to.  The statement is clearly true.

Ham also disputes the nature of the bonds and his property tax discount.  He disputes that the Ark Encounter has not hired anyone yet and we do not know what the standards would be (even though they are claiming that it is legal for them to follow AiG's standards.)  I am not dealing with those claims, because they are beside the point to this discussion.

Ham argues:

Yet most secular bloggers and many in the media would have you believe that we are asking the state for money to complete the Ark.

I am searching, but I still cannot find support for his claim.  Remember, to be true someone must now provide seven examples of individual bloggers.

Citations please

About a week ago, Ken Ham made the following claim in a video he posted to Answers in Genesis' (AiG) facebook. 

We even looked into building in Indiana, but Kentucky’s incentive encouraged us to build here. Yet most secular bloggers and many in the media would have you believe that we are asking the state for money to complete the Ark. So let me say again, that’s simply not true.

Now I have tried to validate this claim and find out what in the world Ham is talking about.  I admit about three years ago, there was some confusion for me about the nature of the tax incentives.  After doing some research, some on AiG's website, I learned that the incentives were a rebate on sales tax at the park.  The state would only give this rebate if the Ark Encounter (AE) generates a required amount of sales tax and even then they would only refund a certain amount.  There are no tax breaks from Kentucky until after the park has been opened.  Still Ham admits, like any good businessman, he was counting on those rebates similar to how people count on their tax returns.  You do not have to have them, but they sure help.

Still, I find it hard to believe that "most secular bloggers...would have you believe that we are asking the state for money to complete the Ark."  Who are these bloggers?  They are certainly not PZ Myers, Hemant Mehta, Dan Arel, JT Eberhard, and Michael Stone.  So who is Ham talking about?  I have listed five bloggers, Ham would need to list at least six to validate his claim.  Ham knows that Myers is not one of them, but more on that later.

Ham has taken issue with some in the media, particularly Rachel Maddow.  However, as far as I can tell, Maddow has never said that AiG is using tax dollars to build the Ark.  In this 2010 video, she said "tax breaks" which is what rebates are, though Ham disagrees.  May 28, 2014, Ham had this to say about a May 2014 Maddow segment. (The bold is in the original.)

First—and I don’t know how many times we’ve had to correct the urban myth that is being spread by the secular media and bloggers—no Kentucky taxpayer money is being used to “build” (her word) the Ark Encounter. It’s a lie that won’t die, and the journalists at MSNBC should know better.

So Maddow should know better according to Ham.  Though Ham provides the entire video, he only quotes in this blog one word, "build", that he takes exception.  This word is a "lie" according to Ham. This is the full quote that Ham is referring.

And when the creationist group Answers in Genesis announced their plans to build their Noah’s Ark theme park, the state of Kentucky offered them $43 million dollars in tax incentives for them to build that theme park.

No where does Maddow claim that "Kentucky taxpayer money is being used" to build AE.  She said, "the state of Kentucky offered them $43 million dollars in tax incentives for them to build that theme park."  The Christianpost in their May 28, 2014 article seemed to try and help Ham out by providing another quote that Maddow could have meant that "taxpayer money" was being used to build the AE.

There will be dinosaurs on Noah's ark, just as soon as the creationists finish finding the dinosaurs in piles of leaves and plant debris, and putting them on the ark with little assist from state government – 43 million in tax incentives. Your tax dollars at work – amazing.

Still here, Maddow is very clear, saying that AE has received tax incentives. "Your tax dollars at work" is a well known chastisement of government officials and government programs. It does not necessarily mean giving tax dollars to a program.  In his May 28, 2014 blog post, Myers took issue with Ham's rebuttal to Maddow.

[Ham] declares that no Kentucky taxpayer money is being used to construct the Ark Encounter, but that is a claim no one made. Maddow says quite clearly several times that the Ark Park has been given $43 million in tax incentives — that is, Answers in Genesis has been exempted from a requirement to pay taxes on their for-profit enterprise, and will also receive rebates on sales taxes. So all Ham has done is rebut a claim that Rachel Maddow did not make.

May 30, 2014, Ham used his facebook to rebut Myers. After citing the first Maddow quote he wrote,

You can hear Maddow say it for yourself at around the 1:55 mark of the video captured at https://answersingenesis.org/…/media-co…/rachels-rant-msnbc/ . The atheist blogger has once again, as such secularists often do, did not tell the truth—and of course Rachel Maddow didn't tell the truth, either. These atheists realize that if you "throw enough mud at the wall, some of it will stick." Others sadly believe their lies and then continue to spread them.

Ham is convinced that the infinitive, "to build", makes the sentence a lie. In the comments he states that he does not even want to call the tax incentives, "tax breaks" like Maddow did in 2010.

Like with the ChristianPost, someone tried to help Ham out, but Ham was having none of it.

Further even while rebutting a secular blogger who continues to claim that no one is saying AE is receiving money for constructing the Ark, he concluded with this point.

Now that we've pointed this out for the "millionth time," I fully expect the atheists to simply ignore it and just continue to disseminate untruths--it's the nature of the spiritual battle in which we're engaged.

It shouldn't be surprising that in a sinful world, those who oppose our Christian message will take what is an obvious situation and claim the opposite is true!

Myers responded with a blog entitled, Is Ken Ham literate?

I said, and Rachel Maddow said, that Ham received $43 million in tax incentives. We know exactly what that means: he got tax exemptions and rebates that would total $43 million as an incentive to construct his monument to idiocy...Which I also clearly said in that bit of mine that he quoted.

You know, on the cop shows when a suspect is accused of X, and he immediately starts blustering “I did not do Y!”, you kind of suspect that he’s guilty of something. What is Ken Ham hiding?

 Remember Ham's big fuss is over the word "build".  Do you remember what he said in the quote that I started?

We even looked into building in Indiana, but Kentucky’s incentive encouraged us to build here.

A little over a week ago, Ham said essentially the same thing that he chided Maddow for saying.  There is not much difference between Ham's comments and this contested quote:

And when the creationist group Answers in Genesis announced their plans to build their Noah’s Ark theme park, the state of Kentucky offered them $43 million dollars in tax incentives for them to build that theme park.

 So far Ham cannot back up his claim that most secular bloggers "would have you believe that we are asking the state for money to complete the Ark."  If most secular bloggers would have me believe that, then citations should not be hard to come by.  His argument about Maddow rests on stretching an infinitive that he himself has been caught using.  If these things are really being said, you should not need to rest your arguments on parsing verbs.

A couple of more points on the Ark Encounter

This is a continuation of my research regarding the Ark Encounter.

Can the Ark Encounter discriminate with their hiring?

[I AM NOT A LAWYER]

There seems to be some debate online about whether a for-profit can be a "religious organization" under Title VII.  The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) had this to say in an article entitled, Questions and Answers: Religious Discrimination in the Workplace.

Religious Organization Exception: Under Title VII, religious organizations are permitted to give employment preference to members of their own religion. The exception applies only to those institutions whose “purpose and character are primarily religious.” Factors to consider that would indicate whether an entity is religious include: whether its articles of incorporation state a religious purpose; whether its day-to-day operations are religious (e.g., are the services the entity performs, the product it produces, or the educational curriculum it provides directed toward propagation of the religion?); whether it is not-for-profit; and whether it affiliated with, or supported by, a church or other religious organization.

From what I can tell, one does not have to be a non-profit to be classified as a "religious organization", but it does help.  Being a "religious organization" is not a a one trait thing, but a conglomeration of traits that add up to make one exempt.

• whether its articles of incorporation state a religious purpose
• whether its day-to-day operations are religious (e.g., are the services the entity performs, the product it produces, or the educational curriculum it provides directed toward propagation of the religion?)
• whether it is not-for-profit
• whether it affiliated with, or supported by, a church or other religious organization.

One does not need all four to qualify.  The Ark Encounter seems to have at least three out of four, but I am not a lawyer.  A judge may rule that they do not meet the criteria.

Who are the jobs going to?

When the Ark Encounter first began, Ken Ham said:

The Ark Encounter is going to employ almost a thousand people, and the impact on the number of jobs associated with that is going to be in the thousands, and our particular research has shown it will be many thousands, and it will bring millions and millions of dollars into the community. In fact, the research that we did shows that the economic impact of the Ark Encounter project over 10 years will be something like $4 billion.

According to Answers in Genesis' (AiG) letter to the Kentucky Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet (TAHC), the Ark Encounter was originally owned by three entities and intended to not discriminate while hiring.  However two of the three entities abandoned the project leaving Crosswater Canyon Inc, which is run by AiG, as the sole owner.  With the other investors no longer in the picture, AiG decided that Ark Encounter was going to religiously discriminate with their hiring.  AiG claims that they informed the TAHC about this change months ago.

So far Ark Encounter has no employees, but it seems like the requirements will be similar to AiG.

• Salvation testimony
• Creation belief statement
• Confirmation of your agreement with the AiG Statement of Faith

When Ham promised a thousand jobs to a city that has less than 4000 and to a county that has less than 25,000, Kentucky's governor was on board.

Kentucky’s Democratic governor supports the tax incentives. He says he wasn’t elected to debate religion, he was elected to create jobs, especially in hard-hit communities like Williamstown near where the ark park will be located and where a majority of the unemployed have been out of jobs for over two years.

Over the last few years, Ham has changed his mind, all of the jobs will only be available to Christians who can agree with among other things, the following statements.

• The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since creation.
• Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.
• The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into secular and religious, is rejected.

Forget hiring Atheists, these jobs will be limited to a minority of Christians.  Catholics or even William Lane Craig need not apply to be lifeguards.  Maybe Grant County is mostly biblical creationists.  However if the county is not, this might not be as big of a boom to the county's economy.

Will the Ark be built entirely of wood?

AiG claims that the pre-flood civilization not only had iron seams, but they knew how to smelt iron.  The Ark was not built by Bronze Age tools, but by Iron Age tools.  Also, Tim Lovett seems to imply that the Ark might have been reinforced by iron.  

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.

Noah's Ark, Honestly, I have asked the same question.

This is from Panda's Thumb, 

Answers in Genesis, perhaps the most visible and well-funded anti-evolution organization in the country, spent approximately $27 million building its creation “museum” in Kentucky. AiG is presently raising money for their latest venture, a Noah’s Ark theme park, estimated to cost $24.5 million when completed. I have a suggestion for Ken Ham and the folks at AiG. Why not spend a fraction of that 24 and a half million to actually do a scientific experiment? For instance: build a real ark, fill it with animals just like Noah is claimed to have done and float it out in the ocean for a year to test the hypothesis. Think of all the converts that would win when it worked! Hell, I’d get saved myself! [1]

Does a church banning interracial couples violate federal law?

This kind of reminds me of the Gelato incident a couple of weeks ago, but this is a church not a business.

PIKEVILLE, Ky. (AP) — An eastern Kentucky church under a firestorm of criticism since members voted to bar mixed-race couples from joining the congregation overturned that decision Sunday, saying it welcomes all believers.

Stacy Stepp, pastor of the Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church in Pike County, told The Associated Press that the vote by nine people last week was declared null and void after it was determined that new bylaws can't run contrary to local, state or national laws. He said the proposal was discriminatory, therefore it couldn't be adopted.

Stepp said about 30 people who attended church services voted on a new resolution that welcomes "believers into our fellowship regardless of race, creed or color."

The issue came up at the tiny all-white Appalachian church after the daughter of church secretary Dean Harville visited over the summer with her boyfriend, who is from Africa, and the two sang for the congregation.

Harville said he was approached in August by Melvin Thompson, the church member who crafted the resolution to bar mixed-race couples, and was told that his daughter and her boyfriend were no longer allowed to sing at the church.

Thompson has said he is not racist and called the matter an "internal affair."

Stepp said the Sandy Valley Conference of Free Will Baptists declared the vote on Thompson's resolution null and void during a meeting on Saturday.

He said he told church members on Sunday about the decision and proposed a resolution to promote "peace, love and harmony."

He said the resolution to welcome all believers passed with a unanimous vote.[1]

Another more detailed story about this small church ban - 9-6

A small Pike County church has voted not to accept interracial couples as members or let them take part in some worship activities.

The decision has caused sharp reaction and disapproval in the Eastern Kentucky county.

"It's not the spirit of the community in any way, shape or form," Randy Johnson, president of the Pike County Ministerial Association, said of the vote.

The issue came up at the Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church, said Dean Harville, a longtime member who serves as church secretary and clerk.

Attendance is usually around 40 people for a Sunday service at the church in the Johns Creek area, Harville said.

Harville said his daughter Stella Harville, who is pursuing a master's degree in optical engineering at a school in Indiana, brought her fiancé, Ticha Chikuni, to church in June and played the piano as he sang.

The couple performed I Surrender All, said Stella Harville, who is 24.

Chikuni, 29, who works at Georgetown College, is black. He is a native of Zimbabwe.

Stella Harville grew up in the church and was baptized there, but she is not a member, Dean Harville said.

Dean Harville said Melvin Thompson, who had been pastor for many years, told him in August that his daughter and her fiancé couldn't sing at the church again.

Thompson stepped down as pastor in August, citing health issues, but he refused Harville's requests to drop the issue, Harville said.

The new pastor, Stacy Stepp, said the couple could sing at the church if they wanted, Harville said.

In early November, Thompson proposed the church go on record saying that while all people were welcome to attend public worship services there, the church did not condone interracial marriage, according to a copy of the recommendation supplied by the Harvilles.

The proposal also said "parties of such marriages will not be received as members, nor will they be used in worship services" or other church functions, with the exception of funerals.

The recommendation "is not intended to judge the salvation of anyone, but is intended to promote greater unity among the church body and the community we serve," the copy supplied to the Herald-Leader read.

Members at a business meeting decided to put the matter before the whole church. Last Sunday, nine people voted for the proposal and six voted against it, Harville said.

There were more people in attendance, but some didn't want to take a stand, he said.

Harville said the resolution was motivated by racism and has given the church, the community, the county and even God a black eye.

"It sure ain't Christian. It ain't nothing but the old devil working," Harville said.

Thompson, who owns a hardware store, told the Herald-Leader on Tuesday that the proposal has been taken out of context, but declined further comment.

Stella Harville said it has been hurtful that some members of her church family made such a decision.

"They're the people who are supposed to comfort me in times like these," she said.

East Kentucky Broadcasting, which owns several radio stations, first reported the story about the vote on Monday.

Hundreds of people have since posted comments disagreeing with the decision, said reporter Shannon Deskins.

Johnson, with the local ministerial association, said the reactions have included heartbreak and disbelief.

"Most of us thought that we'd moved well beyond that," he said.

Harville said he plans to ask the conference of churches to which Gulnare Freewill Baptist belongs to overturn the vote.

Even if that happens, however, "I don't think I'll be able to go back there," his daughter said.

Pastor bans interracial couples from his church - church divided

The past decides to kick just a bit. Fortunately, he does not have all of the church behind him.

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) -- A tiny Appalachian church in Pike County has voted to ban interracial couples from joining its flock, pitting members against each other in an argument over race.

Members at the Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church voted Sunday on the resolution, which says the church "does not condone interracial marriage."

Member Melvin Thompson crafted the resolution but said Wednesday that he is not racist. The church secretary, Dean Harville, disagrees. The resolution followed a visit to the church by Harville's daughter, who is white, and her African boyfriend.

"I am not racist. I will tell you that. I am not prejudiced against any race of people, have never in my lifetime spoke evil" about a race," said Thompson, the church's former pastor who stepped down earlier this year. "That's what this is being portrayed as, but it is not."

He called the matter an "internal affair" of the church.

Harville said an appearance at the church by Stella Harville and her boyfriend, Ticha Chikuni, prompted the vote. Harville said the couple visited the church in June and Chikuni sang a song for the congregation.

Harville, the church's secretary, said he was counting the church offering after a service in early August when he was approached by Thompson, who told him Harville's daughter and her boyfriend were no longer allowed to sing at the church.

"If he's not racist, what is this?" Harville said of Thompson.

Harville and Thompson each said the church's governing conference will meet soon to attempt to resolve the issue. Thompson said he believed the resolution would be overturned.

The vote by members on Sunday was 9-6, Harville said. It was taken after the service, which about 35 to 40 people attended. Harville said many people left or declined to vote.

The resolution says anyone is welcome to attend services, but interracial couples could not become members or be "used in worship services or other church functions."

Stella Harville met Chikuni at Georgetown College where he is a resident director of a dormitory. They are set to be married next year, Dean Harville said.[1]