New Noah's Ark theme park only hiring believers

[Ian]

Normally I wouldn't bother talking about religion but sometimes something pops up that makes me laugh.

The new Noah's Ark theme park in Kentucky is reportedly only hiring people who believed the biblical flood happened.

Ark Encounter, the Noah’s Ark-inspired theme park set to open in Kentucky in 2016 has come under fire yet again, this time for reportedly refusing to hire anyone who doesn’t believe in the biblical flood.

According to local news sources, the group behind the attraction – Answers in Genesis (AiG) – asks prospective employees to sign a faith statement, which includes a belief in creationism and the flood.

The planned Ark attraction and AIG have both come under fire, with atheist groups stating the project to be “absolutely inappropriate."

Opponents to the plans have urged people to take action by directly contacting the Kentucky Tourism Department. Meanwhile, state officials have threatened to rescind tax incentives – amounting to more than US$18m (£11m, €14.2m) over a 10-year period for the park – if it is found to use any 'discriminatory hiring practices'.

Ark Encounter's executive president Mike Zovath said in a statement: "We're hoping the state takes a hard look at their position and changes their position so it doesn't go further than this."

In July, the Kentucky Tourism Development Finance Authority voted unanimously to give preliminary approval of the incentives for the US$73m (€54.4m, £43m) first construction phase of the biblical theme park. The 800-acre attraction is set to feature a recreation of a village prior to the biblical floods, as well as a Tower of Babel housing an audio-visual effects theatre and a full-sized ark.

Link: http://www.am2.jobs/index.cfm?pagetype= ... eID=311963

It could be a publicity stunt (in which case, well done them). Then again, it's bible belt territory, so I wouldn't put it past them.

I think it's great that employees of a theme park should be authentic because it improves the atmosphere. If you have a Disney team member who loves Disney, then their enthusiasm will shine through. It's like a thrill ride enthusiast operating the big coaster at your local park.

 

[gavin]

It's not a publicity stunt. Ken Ham, notorious creationist nut job, is heavily involved in it.

Having an enthusiasm for a product is massively different from refusing employment based on superstitious belief.

 

[therick311]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that is illegal. I don't think you can turn someone down for a job based on religious beliefs.

 

[Ben]

Why would anyone want to work there if they weren't a Bible Basher though?

It's like a Christian working at a place called the Allah Experience, it just wouldn't happen.

 

[therick311]

You are right, the corporate culture probably would make working there as a non-believer annoying. However, that's different than denying an employment opportunity based on religion, or any other protected class. If you were desperate to feed your family, you might be able to put up with it until you can find a better job opportunity.

 

[STC]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that is illegal. I don't think you can turn someone down for a job based on religious beliefs.

In the European Union, yes. In Kentucky, probably not.

 

[gavin]

Why would anyone want to work there if they weren't a Bible Basher though?

It's like a Christian working at a place called the Allah Experience, it just wouldn't happen.

I'm an atheist and work in a Christian school. On a day to day basis it has no bearing on the job at all. Every now and then I just have to bite my tongue and roll my eyes at the occasional idiocy, but it's completely irrelevant to the job I'm hired to do/

Working as a tour guide or in public relations for the park or whatever, then there's a tenuous argument, but you wouldn't need to be a creationist to flip burgers, scan tickets, clean toilets or whatever. I'd do it if it was built in the area and I needed a job, signing whatever bull **** piece of paper they wanted me to.

It's not a case of wanting to work there or not - that's down to the people applying deciding if they would be comfortable working in that kind of environment, and a park like this would be creating a lot of job opportunities. It's a case of trying to deny people jobs based purely on whether they buy into the owners' world view, and that's **** ed up.

It's mostly irrelevant though since it's being built in an area where the majority of the population believe that rubbish anyway.

 

[Ian]

Regardless of it's legality or not, I believe an private sector employer should have the right to employ whoever he/she wants if they match their criteria.

Maybe they shouldn't do so in an obvious way?

 

[Darren B]

^Exactly. You wouldn't hire a 20 stone flat chested monster to work at Hooters would you? The same as you wouldn't hire an ugly flight attendant if you owned Virgin.

All this equality bullcrap needs to stop.

 

[gavin]

^^ Fair point, but should they then be entitled to the $18 million dollar tax break that they're set to lose due to their hiring policy? If you want tax exemptions for a private business, then surely you have to operate within the law and providing equal opportunities for everyone in the community you're screwing.

^^ Which goes back to the point of the kind of role within that workplace. The people doing the accounts, cleaning the toilets, managing stock and frying the wings at Hooters won't be big-titted 20 year-olds. The face of the brand may need to fit a certain type, but it has no bearing on thousands of other jobs within the company.

 

[SilverArrow]

In a similar vein, the Noah's Ark Zoo in the UK only hire people who are happy with the park promoting a Christian ethos although I think it's become less religious recently.

 

[gavin]

^That's vastly different to saying that you HAVE TO believe in something to work there.

 

[PeskyTrimBrake]

The same as you wouldn't hire an ugly flight attendant if you owned Virgin.

If I recall, the FAA used to have weight and height limits to be a flight attendant which led to high numbers of anorexia, eventually removing the law in the 90's. The reason for this law was that the flight attendants needed to fit through the alleyways and actively tend to the passengers during an emergency which makes sense. So, they hired the skinny ones only which caused a huge controversy over discrimination.

_

I agree with Darren and Ian. Even though diversity and tolerance is important in society, this theme park isn't going to to hire freakin Zionists.

 

[Darren B]

^I only brought up Virgin Airlines as an example because Richard Branson specifically said in an interview that he only recruits attractive flight attendants.

 

[gavin]

^^ So you do it in a more intelligent way. You drop the question into an interview and deny employment based on "something else".

If someone you've hired is actively trying to discredit your "brand", you have reason to get rid of them.

You don't stupidly announce that you want government funding/tax breaks, but that you have discriminatory/illegal hiring practices.

Again, the air hostess thing is completely missing the point.

The "face" of your brand may need to fit a certain image. For every person creating that "face", there are ten behind the scenes for who it's totally irrelevant.

I'm really not getting why it's such a difficult concept to grasp?

You want/expect government backing (local taxpayers money), then you follow the laws of the government/people you're expecting money from. It's really not a difficult concept.

 

[PeskyTrimBrake]

^^ So you do it in a more intelligent way. You drop the question into an interview and deny employment based on "something else".

If someone you've hired is actively trying to discredit your "brand", you have reason to get rid of them.

You don't stupidly announce that you want government funding/tax breaks, but that you have discriminatory/illegal hiring practices.

Again, the air hostess thing is completely missing the point.

The "face" of your brand may need to fit a certain image. For every person creating that "face", there are ten behind the scenes for who it's totally irrelevant.

I'm really not getting why it's such a difficult concept to grasp?

You want/expect government backing (local taxpayers money), then you follow the laws of the government/people you're expecting money from. It's really not a difficult concept.

Dont get me wrong, I dont encourage what they are doing and I agree with you. The fact that they are denying people in need of a job because of religion is not an ethical thing to do. But it makes sense on why they are doing it even though it will cost them reputation and the trust of the public.

 

[tomahawk]

But this is Kentucky, this will only help their reputation with their target audience. It's pretty clear who they are targeting for their customer base.

You aren't going to have a very religious doctor doing abortions, they will refuse to (most at least) and they simply don't go for those jobs. Why, if you disagree with an employers viewpoint, would you try and cause trouble by trying to work for them? Only answer is you are a dick. It's a water park, not going to be the highest paying job anyways.

Besides, they can choose not to hire you for an infinite number of reasons. Don't live close enough? Not available overnight despite there being no overnight shift? Too bad. They can say you didn't answer a question the right way. There are so many things they can say as to why someone didn't get the job, it's near impossible to claim discrimination, unless you decide to go full retard and say something like this, so now every atheist across the country will apply and scream they are discriminating when they aren't offered the job.

I didn't get a job because I have a cane and, while they legally can't say that's why I didn't, it was the reason why. The job market is still a flaming dumpster fire, so any little reason they can find to not fire you, they use it.

 

[Mysterious Sue]

That's not the point though. You could be apathetic about religion and happy to take the job but denied because you aren't a Christian. If you are anti-Christian and applying for a job to make a fuss they could fire you for conflict of interest. But you should still have the option to have the job if you want it no matter what you believe.

 

[gavin]

^Exactly. You're not going to get Muslims and Hindus applying - can't imagine there are many in the area - since they'd have different beliefs and wouldn't want to work there. That's different to people who couldn't give a **** about religion and just want a job.

Besides, they can choose not to hire you for an infinite number of reasons. Don't live close enough? Not available overnight despite there being no overnight shift? Too bad. They can say you didn't answer a question the right way. There are so many things they can say as to why someone didn't get the job, it's near impossible to claim discrimination, unless you decide to go full retard and say something like this, so now every atheist across the country will apply and scream they are discriminating when they aren't offered the job.

Which is what I just said. They've just lost themselves millions in tax benefits by being stupid enough to not just do what every other employer does: give another reason for non-employment for someone who doesn't fit.