Clearly prior restraint of free speech, and clearly unconstitutional. If there is no severability, the whole thing could [and should] be tossed on the basis of this provision alone.
Effectively, it means any Oregonian FReeper who posts, "I wouldn't have served them either," is violating the law. Or if the bishop of the archdiocese of Portland simply reiterates the Catholic Church's position on homosexual "marriage" that's also in violation of the statute.
So the law was a fascist limitation on the First Amendment in every sense from its inception.
I be confused.
The "place of public accommodation" in question is supposedly their bakery, which I understand is no longer in operation.
If it's out of business, how can they discriminate?