Unlawful Discrimination in Employment, Public Accommodations and Real Property Transactions

ORS 659A.403
Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited

(1)

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older.

(2)

Subsection (1) of this section does not prohibit:

(a)

The enforcement of laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served;

(b)

The enforcement of laws governing the use of marijuana items, as defined in ORS 475C.009 (Definitions for ORS 475C), by persons under 21 years of age and the frequenting by persons under 21 years of age of places of public accommodation where marijuana items are sold; or

(c)

The offering of special rates or services to persons 50 years of age or older.

(3)

It is an unlawful practice for any person to deny full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation in violation of this section. [Formerly 30.670; 2003 c.521 §1; 2005 c.131 §1; 2007 c.100 §5; 2015 c.614 §27; 2021 c.367 §37]

Notes of Decisions

Racial insults made by employe of place of public accommodation to customer in the course of service to that customer constituted “distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race” in contravention of this section. King v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 61 Or App 197, 656 P2d 349 (1982)

Place of public accommodation may not treat persons between ages of 18 and 21 differentially unless statute authorizes differential treatment. Dalbeck v. Bi-Mart Corp., 315 Or App 129, 500 P3d 711 (2021)

Where bakery, which is place of public accommodation, refused to provide wedding cake to same-sex couple because of couple’s sexual orientation, bakery unlawfully discriminated against same-sex couple by denying to couple full and equal service. Klein v. BOLI, 317 Or App 138, __ P3d __ (2022)

Application of this generally applicable and neutral section to bakery owners who refused on religious grounds to provide wedding cake to same-sex couple because of couple’s sexual orientation does not violate freedom of religion or free exercise clauses of Oregon Constitution or free expression or free exercise clauses of United States Constitution. Klein v. BOLI, 317 Or App 138, __ P3d __ (2022)

Attorney General Opinions

Use of Military Department facilities, trucks, or color guards by organizations which discriminate on the basis of race, religion or sex, (1977) Vol 38, p 929; Hotel limiting use to members of religious foundation as place of public accommodation, (1983) Vol 44, p 20

Law Review Citations

27 WLR 137 (1991)

Source

Last accessed
Mar. 11, 2023

REMOVE ADS