The NYTimes weighs in on Kentucky's controversial tax award to a religion-themed park:
Under current Supreme Court doctrine, Kentucky’s support of the proselytizing theme park seems likely to withstand a possible church-state legal challenge, assuming state officials were scrupulous in applying the neutral financial criteria in the state’s economic development law. It is not even clear that the court’s conservative majority would find taxpayers have standing to sue.
But granting tax incentives to the explicitly Christian enterprise clearly clashes with the First Amendment’s prohibition on government establishment of religion. Public money is not supposed to pay to advance religion. Kentucky’s citizens should certainly ask themselves if this is really the best use of taxpayer dollars.
But could they choose not to fund the project? The theory of Governor Beshear and other supporters is that to deny a tax incentive for which Ark Encounter is qualified could amount to religious discrimination. Is there any room between the two positions for discretion?
