Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.403 (2026)

Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      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, 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
Cited in 39 cases (23 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case: Klein v. Or. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 410 P.3d 1051 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Klein v. Or. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 410 P.3d 1051 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 56× “*510 Melissa and Aaron Klein, the owners of a bakery doing business as Sweetcakes by Melissa (Sweetcakes), seek judicial review of a final order of the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) finding that the Kleins' refusal to provide a wedding cake to the complainants, a…”
Dalbeck v. Bi-Mart Corp., 500 P.3d 711 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 39× “403 as not protecting persons between the ages of 18 and 20 from age discrimination, and, alternatively, in recognizing an implied exception to the statutory bar on age discrimination. Plaintiff also assigns error to the court’s denial of her motion to amend her complaint to add…”
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023). · cites it 3× “§ 291(2) (West 2019); Ore. Rev. Stat. § 659A.403 (2021); R. I. Gen.”
Fenimore v. Blachly-Lane Cnty. C.E.A., 441 P.3d 699 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 7× “142(4) narrowly is ORS 659A.403. Under that statute, "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…”
Allen v. U.S. Bancorp, 264 F. Supp. 2d 945 (D. Or. 2003). · cites it 20× “§ 1981 and Or.Rev.Stat. § 659A.403. The court considers each alleged violation individually in order to determine whether plaintiff has properly pled a claim for relief.”
Klein v. BOLI, 506 P.3d 1108 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 26× “ies, ___ US ___, 139 S Ct 2713 , 204 L Ed 2d 1107 (2019), the Oregon Court of Appeals adhered to its prior decision upholding a determination by the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) that petitioner Aaron Klein unlaw- fully discriminated against the complainants, the…”
Hively v. Ivy Tech Cmty. Coll. of Indiana, 853 F.3d 339 (7th Cir. 2017). “ll(l)(a)(l) (same); Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.403(1) (same); Washington Civil Rights Act, Wash.”
McLaughlin v. Wilson, 449 P.3d 492 (Or. 2019). · cites it 2× “030(1)(f), both before and after 2001, protects persons who had opposed practices or made reports concerning unlawful practices under civil rights statutes that are not related to employment, such as ORS 659A.403 (prohibiting discrimination in places of pub- lic accommodation)…”
Harrington v. Airbnb, Inc., 348 F. Supp. 3d 1085 (D. Or. 2018). · cites it 4× “See Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 659A.403, 659A.885(7). Because Judge You concluded that Plaintiffs did not adequately allege discriminatory intent, she did not reach the question of whether Defendant's business is a place of public accommodation, which is also required to state a claim…”
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023). · cites it 3× “4th, at —————— (West 2019); Ore. Rev. Stat. §659A.403 (2021); R. I. Gen.”
Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., 340 P.3d 27 (Or. 2014). · cites it 2× “210 (defining public accommodation to include “places of recreation”); ORS 659A.403 (prohibiting discrimination in places of public accommodation); ORS 659A.”
Telescope Media Grp. v. Rebecca Lucero, 936 F.3d 740 (8th Cir. 2019). “of Amici Curiae Massachusetts et al. 3a–8a. In all, more than half of all Americans live in a jurisdiction that prohibits this type of discrimination.”
Show all 39 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.403(1) — 12 cases
Hively v. Ivy Tech Cmty. Coll. of Indiana, 853 F.3d 339 (7th Cir. 2017). “ll(l)(a)(l) (same); Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.403(1) (same); Washington Civil Rights Act, Wash.”
Fenimore v. Blachly-Lane Cnty. C.E.A., 441 P.3d 699 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “142(4) narrowly is ORS 659A.403. Under that statute, "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…”
Dalbeck v. Bi-Mart Corp., 500 P.3d 711 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “403 as not protecting persons between the ages of 18 and 20 from age discrimination, and, alternatively, in recognizing an implied exception to the statutory bar on age discrimination. Plaintiff also assigns error to the court’s denial of her motion to amend her complaint to add…”
Klein v. Or. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 410 P.3d 1051 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “*510 Melissa and Aaron Klein, the owners of a bakery doing business as Sweetcakes by Melissa (Sweetcakes), seek judicial review of a final order of the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) finding that the Kleins' refusal to provide a wedding cake to the complainants, a…”
Austin v. Walmart, Inc., 340 Or. App. 279 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.403(2) — 1 case
Dalbeck v. Bi-Mart Corp., 500 P.3d 711 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “403 as not protecting persons between the ages of 18 and 20 from age discrimination, and, alternatively, in recognizing an implied exception to the statutory bar on age discrimination. Plaintiff also assigns error to the court’s denial of her motion to amend her complaint to add…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.403(3) — 6 cases
Klein v. Or. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 410 P.3d 1051 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “*510 Melissa and Aaron Klein, the owners of a bakery doing business as Sweetcakes by Melissa (Sweetcakes), seek judicial review of a final order of the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) finding that the Kleins' refusal to provide a wedding cake to the complainants, a…”
Blachana, LLC v. Oregon Bureau of Labor & Indus., 359 P.3d 574 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
Brown v. Vulcan LLC (D. Or. 2024).
Akwenuke v. Am. Airlines (D. Or. 2024).
Brown (D. Or. 2026).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.403(a) — 1 case
Dalbeck v. Bi-Mart Corp., 500 P.3d 711 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “403 as not protecting persons between the ages of 18 and 20 from age discrimination, and, alternatively, in recognizing an implied exception to the statutory bar on age discrimination. Plaintiff also assigns error to the court’s denial of her motion to amend her complaint to add…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.