re: #142 Sionainn

What’s weird is I just read the order. On the one hand, the Commissioner denied that the couple were receiving monetary awards for damages due to the publicity, but at the same time, awards them the damages based on ORS 659A.409, which is exactly what the Commissioner was denying. I’m so confused.

?

§ 659A.409¹
Notice that discrimination will be made in place of public accommodation prohibited
• age exceptions
Except as provided by laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served, and except for special rates or services offered to persons 50 years of age or older, it is an unlawful practice for any person acting on behalf of any place of public accommodation as defined in ORS 659A.400 (Place of public accommodation defined) to publish, circulate, issue or display, or cause to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of the place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older. [Formerly 659.037; 2003 c.521 §3; 2005 c.131 §2; 2007 c.100 §7]