Talk:Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries

two sides to the story

I'm looking to expand the scope of this story. The articles sourced so far indicate that this is purely an LGBT play, but is there more to it? For example, are there reference articles on why the LGBT couple decided to go to this particular establishment in the first place? This is not at all to indicate that they should be forced to do so, just wondering if there is additional information about what lead to the exchange and eventual altercation. Sliceofmiami (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The LGBT couple were regular customers at the bakery. This was admitted by the Kleins who said they had no problem having them as customers but only objected to making them a wedding cake. There is a lot more to the story. The Klein's didn't just refuse to make the cake but were "abusive" to the couple (by quoting them scripture) which prompted the couple to make a complaint to the Department of Justice which dismissed the complaint. A copy of the complaint, which included the couples names, their address, phone number and email, was sent to the Klein's as per the standard practice. When Aaron Klein received the complaint, he immediately published it on his Facebook page in full, complete with all the identifying information. Following this post he was invited on a radio show to discuss the complaint. As a result, the LGBT couple were harassed and started receiving death threats. Compounding this, they had two foster children and were informed by state adoption officials that they may lose them if they couldn't protect them from the harassment, because it was the couple’s responsibility to keep privileged information confidential. This was 6 months after the harassment began and was what prompted them to now lodge a complaint with the Bureau of Labor and Industries who investigated and pressed charges The couple did everything they could to avoid attention, refusing to talk to the either the media or gay rights organizations. They did receive a lot of donations but donated them all to charity. By way of contrast, the Kleins kept giving interviews in the media via support from anti-gay groups which kept the issue in the public eye. The emotional stress suffered by the couple was factored into the damages which is why the damages were so high. The Kleins started a go-fund me page to pay for the damages but it was blocked for violating the terms of service. However the page did raise over $100,000 which the Kleins were free to use. I'm not interested in expanding the story myself but I think it does need to have context. You will find the info out there so feel free to expand away. Wayne (talk) 07:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Administrative Law Judge, Brad Avakian, got kicked out of office for this stunt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Avakian That article states that the winner was the first Republican elected to statewide office since 2002. 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:31CE:DE54:6C83:B75B (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope, the source in the article just states that the judge was known for the case, not that he lost because of the case. To corelate that would be original research. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This specific source is only one source of information. There are others. I am not claiming that this fact should be directly added to the article merely on that basis, yet; rather, this is one more piece of information that would be relevant to the development of this main article. That's what the Talk page is for. 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:31CE:DE54:6C83:B75B (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at the race itself. The race wasn't for Labor Commissioner, which Brad Avakian currently holds. It was actually for Secretary of State. Brad Avakian was not kicked out of office for this stunt. In fact, he's still in the office. Dunstvangeet (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

This is clearly a POV violation: " Some of the terms of the order have been misinterpreted as a 'gag order'..."

This obviously comes down on one side of the argument. POV violation. Material written in the voice of WP should not take sides. Besides, any realistic reading of the material quoted below that text would be seen to be a 'gag order'. http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/07/gag_order_or_cease_and_desist.html It is clearly a ruling designed to prohibit the operators of Sweet Cakes by Melissa from speaking. See the Pentagon Papers case, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers , and the Supreme Court ruling on the issue of a pre-publication injunction, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States . Generally, American law strongly discourages pre-publication injunctions. If there is going to be a violation of law, it is necessary to await the actual publication and only act then. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, it was editor "Legitimus" who on 26 Jan 2018 snuck the wording "have been misinterpreted as a gag order" into the article, and disguised his actions by describing them as: " (→‎Case history: additional detail on the case expanded using news and court record sources; numerous grammar and sentence structure improvements.) (undo) Sneaky. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Do not make personal attacks against other users because you disagree on an matter of source interpretation. I see you have already received a warning from an administrator for not following rules. Furthermore, this article was an utter mess when I discovered it and clearly had been edited by someone with limited understanding of the English language, much less the American legal system. The label of gag order is solely made by non-attorney individuals who are biased in favor of a specific outcome of this legal dispute. OregonLive did a very poor job at explaining this in a balanced way. Compare this to the Slate article written by Mark Joseph Stern who is an attorney. Anyone who is familiar with the legal term will recognize this is an injunction.21:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)\

I am identifying the person who made that improper edit. I do not believe that is a "personal attack", any more than when one editor explains that an edit must be made because there is a violation of the rules. (the edit was obviously improper because it came down on one side of the issue.) This information was not easy to find, because WP has no mechanism (that I am aware of) of quickly finding the origin of text tens, or even hundreds of edits later. I also pointed out that this improper edit was made in a sneaky fashion, hiding it in a flurry of other edits. See Ad Hominem: "Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by INSTEAD attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]". (my highlighting of "INSTEAD" by capitalization supplied.) Notice the word "instead" highlighted by capitalization. I certainly cannot be accused of doing something "instead": I clearly state and explain the impropriety of the edit, correct it, AND go on to show that not only was it wrong, it was also done in a surreptitious manner. I am entitled to do that. In any case, today the Supreme Court slapped down an instance of requiring bakeries to do business with some individuals. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Studying the comments on the Slate article you cited, I notice a comment made nearly 3 years ago. "Spado Potato Jul 6, 2015 @ndmike12 @Spado Potato What if someone simply said they were not going to comply, but no one had yet come forward to say they had been refused service?". [end of quote] That simple comment explains and demolishes any argument in favor of an "injunction". (or a "gag order"). If it is truly against Oregon law to publish that you will refuse business for reason of sexual orientation, no "injunction" would be necessary. An injunction, in this case, is simply a violation of First Amendment rights. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)