Melissa's Sweet Cakes' $135,000 Punishment, Religious Liberty and the Declaration of Independence

UPDATE 3: Good for George Rede of the Oregonian for reporting on the First Amendment issue.

UPDATE 2: OregonGuy supplied a link to Avakian's order.

UPDATE: Max Redline comments that Brad Avakian has put a gag order on the Kleins directing them not to talk about their views on gay marriage or face punishment. It reads:

“The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” Avakian wrote.

If an Oregon judge or Federal judge doesn't overturn this, it means that not only is First Amendment religious freedom no longer protected, but free speech is also gone.

Oregon State Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian confirmed a recommendation by Administrative Law Judge Alan McCullough that Aaron and Melissa Klein pay $135,000 in damages to a same-sex couple they refused to bake a wedding cake for.

The refusal was made more than a year before U.S. District Judge Michael McShane legalized same-sex marriages Oregon so the marriage was not legal under Oregon law at the time, Rachel Cryer and Rachel Bowman, the lesbian couple, were apparently seeking a cake for a "commitment ceremony".

Oregon law allows a religious exemption from non-discrimination for sexual orientation to churches and religious institutions in housing, use of facilities and employment.

What's interesting here is that the argument on the left against the Citizens United v Federal Election Commission decision is that corporations should not enjoy the same First Amendment rights as individuals. Justice Stevens dissents from the Citizens United decision:

In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process.

The same thing can be said of churches and religious institutions.  They cannot "vote or run for office", "may be managed and controlled by nonresidents", "their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters" and their "financial resources, legal structure and instrumental orientation" may raise "legitimate concerns about their role" as regards Constitutional rights.

At the core of the Klein case is whether the First Amendment protection for the "free exercise" of religion is for individuals as well as religious organizations.

Oregon's current position is that religious liberty applies primarily to religious organizations and not to individuals. It's as if when you get enough people together to form an organization they gain more rights than individuals.

In the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case the court declared that the government must use similar "least-restrictive-means" for closely held corporations as for religious non-profit organizations and no-profit employers. The State of Oregon has not done that. Oregon does not require churches and religious organizations to use their facilities regardless of sexual orientation but does require Melissa's Sweet Cakes to use its facilities irrespective of sexual orientation.

The recent Obergefell v. Hodges decision may bring a clash between the Court's protection of religious freedom for individuals, churches and closely held corporations and its support for equal rights.  Both Chief Justice Roberts* and Justice Thomas** raised concerns in their dissents about a meaningful retention of the First Amendment "free exercise" clause.

Their is no such ambiguity in the Declaration of Independence. Since basic rights come from God and not government, those rights cannot justly be abridged or denied by government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . ."

----------
*Roberts: "Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.

**Thomas: "The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability. It makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph, ante, at 27. And even that gesture indicates a misunderstanding of religious liberty in our Nation’s tradition. Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for "religious organizations and persons . . . as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths." Ibid. Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice.

Oregon Health Insurer Giant Moda Having Problems; Oregon Insurance Division Bailing Them Out with Rate Payer Money?

MaxRedline has an interesting post on the Oregon Insurance Division refusing to allow Oregon health insurance providers to reduce their rates. In fact its preliminary determinations are forcing two providers to charge almost $60/month more than they want to charge.

Health Net wanted to charge a $240 monthly premium for its silver plan for a 40 year old. Zoom, a new provider, wanted to charge $233 per month for its silver plan. But the Oregon Insurance Division has given a preliminary determination that Health New will have to charge $297/month and Zoom will have to charge $291/month for the silver plan.

Why is the Oregon Insurance Division asking health insurance providers to charge more than they think is necessary? The Oregonian reports that state regulators are doing it to keep the health insurance industry "stable".

"State Insurance Commissioner Laura Cali said that while her job is to make sure consumers are not overcharged, she also has to ensure rates cover insurers' costs. Otherwise, predatory pricing could over the long term drive some companies out of the market. She said that Oregon is likely to still enjoy better rates than other states thanks to one of the most competitive markets in the country.

"Pat Allen, director of the state Department of Consumer and Business Services, said 'We need to ensure a market that long term is stable, competitive and ensures pricing that is much closer to the cost of delivering health care.'"

Zoom is new to Oregon, and Health Net covers only about 1,000 individual policy buyers out of an Oregon market of over 220,000. But, do state regulators know more about running stable long term health insurance plans than Kaiser Foundation Health Plan or Providence Health Plan who insure about 1/5th of Oregon's individual plan market? Kind of doubtful.

So, why would Oregon health insurance regulators ask Kaiser and Providence to raise their proposed rates $26/month ($271 instead of $245/month) and $27/month ($284 instead of $257/month)respectively?

Maybe to help other insurers stay in business who have not made wise decisions?

Moda, Oregon's biggest insurer with 46% of the Oregon individual market is asking for a 25.6% monthly premium raise from $245/month to $307/month. It took a big loss in 2014. It expected claims and administrative costs to equal 99% of premium income. But, instead they equaled 165% of income. Ouch!

Then there is LifeWise Health Plan which serves a tenth of Oregon's individual health care insurance market asking for $318/month (a 38.5% premium increase) in 2016.

Where were the wise state regulators on higher premiums bringing stability when they approved Moda for second lowest premium $221/month in 2014 and LifeWise for lowest premium $222/month for 2015? If $222/month is fine this year, why shouldn't $233 or $245/month be fine in 2016?

Could it be that the state regulators like Laura Cali and Pat Allen are really trying to shield big players like Moda and LifeWise from their bad business decisions? Two years into ACA coverage they aren't doing well. They insure 56% of the Oregon individual market. Too big to fail so all the individual plan premium payers of the other providers have to cough up increases too?

Effects of Unstable Currency: Brazilian Credit Cards Now Charge 360% Interest a Year

Brazilian credit card interest has now risen to 360% a year.

In the 1980's and early 1990's Brazil faced runaway inflation. One of the main tools to reign it in was high interest rates. This, of course, impacted both consumer spending and business expansion (fewer products bought = fewer products manufactured).

Out of control spending and money printing leads to disastrous side effects in any economy including the eighth largest economy in the world: Brazil.

Translation:

Juros = interest
Cartão de crédito (Rotativo) = credit card (revolving)
Cheque Especial = bank credit line
Variação porcentual ao ano = yearly percentage variation
Fonte: Banco Central = Source: Central Bank

Newspaper Woes Continue: 3% Slide in Circulation

The Pew Research Center reports that newspaper circulation fell 3% in 2014 as compared to 2013. (Though 2013 was the only positive year in a decade long -47% slide in circulation.)

"After a year of slight gains, newspaper circulation fell again in 2014 (though tracking these data is becoming more complicated each year due to measurement changes)[*]. Revenue from circulation rose, but ad revenue continued to fall, with gains in digital ad revenue failing to make up for falls in print ad revenue. Despite widespread talk of a shift to digital, most newspaper readership continues to be in print."

Total revenue has fallen from $46.1 billion in 2003 to $20.7 billion in 2013**--about a 55% drop. Interestingly, newsroom employment has not dropped as fast as revenue. It went from 54,200 employees in 2003 to 36,700 in 2013--only a 32% drop. So, newsroom employees have felt only about half the impact of the drop in newspaper revenue.

The sad story is perhaps told best by the drop in daily readership by age. There has been a significant drop in newspaper readership among all age groups since 2000, but especially among those under the age of 45.Currently those under 45 are half as likely to read a newspaper as their under 45 counterparts in 2003.

2003 daily newspaper readership:
18-24 year olds - 40%
25-34 year olds - 41%
35-44 year olds - 50%
45-54 year olds - 59%
55-64 year olds - 64%
age 65+ - 71%

2014 daily newspaper readership:
18-24 year olds - 17%
25-34 year olds - 20%
35-44 year olds - 23%
45-54 year olds - 32%
55-64 year olds - 40%
age 65+ -  52%

The only bright spot for Oregon newspapers is that the Oregonian is in the "Top 25 Newspapers by Digital Traffic" coming in at number 21 with 6,339,000 unique visitors in January, 2015. Unhappily, that doesn't translate into actual circulation since the Oregonian doesn't make the top 25 in digital circulation.

The Alliance for Audited Media remains useless for daily circulation numbers, but Pew Research gamely puts together a top 25 list for Sunday newspapers. Here are the top 25 in Sunday circulation and Sunday digital circulation:

Total circulation, Sunday edition, September 2014:
The New York Times - 2,502,367
Los Angeles Times - 965,598
Houston Chronicle - 925,065
The Detroit News and Free Press - 835,661
The Washington Post - 776,806
Chicago Tribune - 769,215
The Dallas Morning News - 707,792
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution - 665,056
San Jose Mercury News - 634,001
(MN) Star Tribune - 589,725
The Denver Post - 573,542
(NY) Daily News - 558,057
(NY) Newsday - 510,683
The Philadelphia Inquirer - 497,142
(CA) Daily News - 491,480
The Arizona Republic - 462,477
New York Post - 454,007
St. Louis Post-Dispatch - 438,058
(OH) The Plain Dealer - 397,891
Chicago Sun-Times - 387,604
The Boston Globe - 377,405
(NJ) The Star-Ledger - 359,820
The Seattle Times - 352,131
Tampa Bay Times - 350,216
U-T San Diego - 334,723

Digital circulation, Sunday edition, September 2014:
The New York Times - 1,321,207
Los Angeles Times - 280,125
New York Post - 238,655
(NY) Newsday - 217,816
The Denver Post - 153,682
Chicago Tribune - 146,448
(NY) Daily News - 145,497
The Philadelphia Inquirer - 138,800
The Dallas Morning News - 121,917
(NJ) The Star-Ledger - 119,494
The Salt Lake Tribune - 109,568
(UT) Deseret News - 101,094
The Boston Globe - 94,965
(OH) The Plain Dealer - 80,799
Chicago Sun-Times - 76,716
Honolulu Star-Advertiser -72,491
San Jose Mercury News - 71,440
Houston Chronicle - 71,087
(MN) Star Tribune - 67,573
The Seattle Times - 66,347
Saint Paul Pioneer Press - 59,915
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution - 50,645
San Francisco Chronicle - 43,636
(MD) The Sun - 42,982
(WI) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - 42,612

One presumes that subtracting the Sunday digital circulation from the Sunday total circulation for newspapers on both lists will give the print circulation. But, that is iffy given the Alliance for Audited Media's bizarre circulation metrics.

____

*Due to Alliance for Audited Media's measuring changes.
**Total Revenue in 2014 was $19.9 billion--a -$0.8 billion drop from 2013.

May Garden

We picked and ate the first green beans of the season. The first green tomato is showing, and the apples are growing on our little dwarf apple tree. Wow! Bits of joy God has sprinkled in our life not only to see but to eat.

Supreme Court Case Could Revolutionize Voting Districts

The Supreme Court will soon be deciding (in Evenwel v. Abbott) if representation should reflect eligible voters or total population. Does one person/one vote mean voters are all equal, or that a voter in an area with lots of non-voters should have more sway than a voter in an area with fewer non-voters. An interesting question. It could change political power from cities where there are more non-voters (including areas that have been courting illegal immigrants) to suburbs or rural areas where the eligible voter to non-voter population is more even.

From Seth Lipsky of the New York Sun:

The case — known as Evenwel v. Abbott — is arising from Texas. It’s about whether voting power has to be apportioned equally by general population or by eligible voters. The impact could extend way beyond the Lone Star State, shifting political power away from cities.

Particularly cities with relatively high, non-voting immigrant populations like — oh, say — New York. The case has the potential to require authorities to strip away during the redistricting process population that isn’t eligible to vote — undocumented aliens, felons, children.

Edward Blum is the conservative constitutional sage who heads the Project on Fair Representation, which provided counsel in this case. He tells me the Nine could force redistricting. The court could, he said, “help upstate New York districts dramatically.”

Not just upstate. Mr. Blum reckons the case could lead to changes in city councils, too. He speculates that council districts in such big cities as New York, Houston and Chicago are among the “most mal-apportioned” in the country.

Here's a link to an amicus brief that gives some of the argumentation.

Seniors View Smartphones as Instruments of Freedom More than Young People

The Pew Research Center reports that older people see smartphones much more positively than younger people.

Almost 4/5ths of those 50 and over see smartphones as giving them freedom and allowing them to connect.

While almost 1/3rd of those under 50 see smartphones as a "leash" and "distracting".

Pew notes that far fewer older people use smartphones than younger people. While 85% of those under 30 have smartphones, only 27% of those 65 and older have smartphones.

Pew says that the difference in views may come from the fact that older people use smartphones for a much narrower range of activities than younger people.

. . . Younger adults tend to use their phones for a far wider range of purposes (especially social networking and multimedia content) and are much more likely to turn to their phone as a way to relieve boredom and to avoid others around them.

Older adults, by contrast, tend to use their phones for a narrower range of purposes – especially basic communication functions such as voice calling, texting and email. For young adults, smartphones are often the device through which they filter both the successes and annoyances of daily life – which could help explain why these users are more likely to report feeling emotions about their phone ranging from happy and grateful to frustrated or angry during a weeklong survey.

It also may have to do with seniors remembering what it was like when both communication and information sources were not readily at hand.

I remember when someone with a cell phone called for roadside assistance when our vehicle broke down. My dad had started to walk up the highway in what looked to be a miles long walk to try to find the nearest phone to call for assistance. A kind man with a cell phone pulled over, talked to my dad, and called AAA for him.

As an older person I see the internet as a marvel. I remember the days of going to the library and poring over encyclopedias, reference books, and the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature to find answers to questions that are now a snap. And "how to" information is especially accessible via youtube.

The only downside of cell phones and smart phones is that you are always on call. Unless, of course, you turn them off when you don't want to be disturbed, or only turn them on when you have a need for them. Heh.