At a new Kentucky theme park, Christians are the ones getting taken for a ride. Construction is already underway in Williamstown for a one-of-a-kind tourist attraction by our friends at Answers in Genesis (AiG). The organization behind the Creation Museum is working on a built-to-scale Ark Encounter – but so far, all they’ve encountered is intolerance.

Ken Ham, the group’s President and CEO, had the support of plenty of key leaders to bring Noah’s story to life, including Governor Steve Beshear (D-Ky.). But now, after pressure from a few vocal secularists, the state is stripping the tax incentives it gave preliminary approval to last year. Under a new Kentucky law, projects like AiG’s are eligible for huge tax rebates, upwards of $18 million in this case. Essentially, this is money that would be returned to the theme park over a period of 10 years from sale taxes they collect.

The state had given AiG the thumbs up on its application last fall, which triggered some outcry from anti-faith groups. Almost immediately, they swooped into Kentucky and started making noise about the rebate, demanding that it be retracted. Why? Because AiG dares to hire people who share their beliefs on creation. And as a religious organization, that’s entirely within both state and federal law. Do we force animal rights groups to hire hunters? No. Or Muslim groceries to hire pig farmers? Of course not. So why is Ham’s group being targeted?

Good question – one the organization hopes the federal courts can answer. From the moment the 510-foot ship was announced, atheists have tried to sink the project. Now, they’re twisting the arms of the state to adopt their own narrow views. Unfortunately, Kentucky complied after the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State launched an organized push for the IRS to investigate. Within weeks, the state reneged on its tax offer.

AiG tried – unsuccessfully – to resolve the matter with the state before heading to the courts. Now, after exhausting all of his options, Ham is suing the state for singling out the religious group for discrimination. “The state granted its preliminary approval for the incentive. Only after the atheist groups objected and publicly attacked the state’s preliminary approval, did the state renege on its commitment,” Ham explained. “Our organization spent many months attempting to reason with state officials so that this lawsuit would not be necessary. However, the state was so insistent on treating our religious entity as a second-class citizen that we were simply left with no alternative but to proceed to court. This is that latest example of increasing government hostility toward religion in America, and it’s certainly among the most blatant.” Mike Johnson, chief counsel of Freedom Guard, is representing the group. Like us, he thinks the state is setting a dangerous and unlawful precedent.

Constitutional questions aside, with as many as 700,000 people expected at the Ark each year, the benefits for Kentucky far outweigh any perceived slights in hiring policy. Leaders created these tax breaks as a way to bring more people to the state – and now that one organization is actively trying, they’re being told no because of their religious orientation. And, as we’ve seen with frightening frequency, politicians like Beshear (either of their own accord or under the threat of legal action from atheists) are telling Christians that surrendering their beliefs is the price of doing business.

Ethical Science Slips Bit by Brit

If two’s company, then three parents are a crowd! Unfortunately, Britain doesn’t see it that way and [Tuesday] stunned the world with a vote to move forward with a highly controversial practice: the creation of three-parent embryos. Scientists have been nagging the U.K. to green light the experiments, which would use the DNA of three people to create one healthy embryo.

The goal is to “build” children that lack the disease-causing mutations (like diabetes, hearing loss, heart disease, and other conditions) in their mitochondria, the little energy factories in all of our cells. A jaw-dropping 382 British officials supported the measure, which destroys countless other human embryos in the pursuit of one genetically-perfected child. Around the world, people on both sides of the political spectrum decried the move, which creates more problems than it solves.

And not just ethically. Dr. Peter Saunders, one of Britain’s leading opponents of the bill, said, “These techniques are highly experimental, unproven, known to be very unsafe, ineffective, costly, a waste of public money, insufficiently understood, and will require large numbers of efforts to proceed, even for just a few families.” Of course, the kill-to-cure crowd has been around for years, but only recently has it gained new momentum.

As more governments drive out faith, the world is beginning to see the consequences. In the absence of moral absolutes, and the inability or desire to consider the unintended consequences we enter a dangerous new world. First three-parent embryos, then what? Animal-human hybrids? Human clones? Designer babies? Where do you draw the line? As C.S. Lewis warned, “What we call Man’s power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument.” Just because we have the power to experiment with life doesn’t mean we should.

Paving the Gavel Road to Same-sex ‘Marriage’

Thirty-three states may recognize same-sex “marriage,” but not because voters asked them to! For the last several months, the Left has been trying to build this false narrative about the groundswell of support for same-sex “marriage.” As we’ve seen from the string of activist courts, there may be a shift in the courts – but not the court of public opinion. In fact, as Pew Research points out, support for the redefinition of civilization’s oldest institution has actually dropped.

Unfortunately, this hasn’t stopped the media from trying to convince America that the courts’ decisions are somehow an accurate reflection of what the people believe. Of course, the irony is: if voters were actually with the Left on this issue, there wouldn’t be a need for the courts to intervene! In reality, people in only three of those 33 states have actually voted for the agenda the President’s minority is pushing—the others were court-imposed or legislatively-invented.

The goal is – and has always been – to make Americans feel as if same-sex “marriage” is not only inevitable, but that they’re powerless to push back against it. That’s a lie, as courageous leaders like Mike Huckabee, judges like Roy Moore, and conservatives like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) are proving with outspoken support for the people’s right to uphold natural marriage. Still, liberals press on, enlisting the courts in their march to fundamentally transform society.

In Alabama, home to Judge Moore, elected officials are asking the Supreme Court to intervene and put same-sex “weddings” on hold. The state’s attorney general wants to avoid the chaos that’s erupted in states like Utah, where couples were allowed to “marry” and then thrown into legal limbo when a higher court stayed the ruling.

Meanwhile, the 8th Circuit Court, which has jurisdiction over states like Arkansas and Missouri, has decided to weigh in on marriage before the Supreme Court takes up the topic this spring. To some, the timing is more than coincidental. If the judges rule in favor of same-sex “marriage,” they’ll put even more pressure on the High Court to break their way. On the flip side, the 8th Circuit could be a voice of reason, urging restraint on an institution the court will never have the power to redefine – regardless of what happens in June.

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.