Try using a more accurate title, Blacken. The park ISN'T tax-funded. It's being offered tax incentives based on projected revenue, much like any other business.
As the legal analyst, Jeffery Toobin, said in the video, were this to go to US Supreme Court, it would likely side with the park and its investors. You could probably use the 2002 school voucher case, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, where the ruling was that government can fund religious institutions that serve a secular function, as long as such services are available to all institutions in that genre. And, as long as the choice to spend the funds is that of the private citizens, NOT THE government.
