CaptainDork isn't implying anything. S/he says it's okay to attack the character of an individual who is skeptical of the facts, not beliefs.
Right but his sentence could be read another way (or so it did when I first read it).
Can he do that by practicing illegal discrimination? If you bothered to read the Slate article linked by CaptainDork, you'd see that Ken Ham is engaging in just that.
It is illegal, so he can't. But then, I wasn't commenting on how he builds his park, or who he hires to build it. Only whatever he wants. (so long as it passes building codes, but then again, I was really stating my principles not what is legally possible.
That's the point. Again, read the Slate article linked by CaptainDork. And if you're too lazy to do that, then here you go:
Thanks for that. But no, I did read the article. I just don't agree with Ken Ham spending public funds to build something based on his beliefs, and not our collective scientific knowledge. I don't think the government has any place paying for the support of ANYONE's beliefs, including Ken Hams. I know the article was stating that Kentucky did so, and I'm glad I am not from Kentucky. Again, I was really stating what I think is right:
I just don't want him influencing public policy or spending public funds on projects that are not based on science.