State bureaucrats award $400,000 to cross-dressers who were asked to go to another bar

Example number 3,859,923 of why fewer jobs are "being created" than are needed to reduce the number of unemployed:  In leftist paradise Oregon a group of male transvestites had been frequenting a particular bar every Friday for two years.  But as the group grew, the owner says he began to get complaints from his non-cross-dressing customers.  Business began to decline.

Finally the owner told the cross-dressers they were no longer welcome in his bar.

The group responded by enlisting the help of the state--specifically the "Bureau of Labor and Industries."

Two days ago the state's agents in that bureau ordered the bar owner to pay $400,000 to 11 members of the group for "mental, emotional, and physical suffering damages."  The bureaucrats also slapped the owner with an additional $5,000 "civil penalty" for violating the Oregon Equality Act.
 
When asked about the size of the "award." Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian said the it "allows [the group's members] to feel justice was done and move on in a positive way,"

Awww, isn't that sweet.

Interestingly, the state bureaucrats refused to identify the supposedly-aggrieved cross-dressers by their real names, because under the Oregon Equality Act the state makes the case for the complainants, so the latter can remain hidden.  Moreover, when the defendant sought to take depositions from the allegedly-aggrieved transvestites, the bureaucrats refused to allow it.  (In a deposition, attorneys ask witnesses--in this case including the cross-dressers--a huge range of questions, which the witness must answer under oath.)

So let's review:  The State brings the case, refuses to identify complainants by real name, refuses to allow the defendant to depose the complainants, and then acts as the jury and awards the complainants $400,000.  Is that about it?

I'd always heard that anyone accused had the right to confront the accuser in open court.  Guess that was just a myth.

Now, if you're a cross-dresser you're probably elated by this "ruling."  If you own a business it's a different story, because a $405,000 penalty is a business-killer.

The Oregon Equality Act is similar to laws in many states in giving the state the authority to impose huge penalties on individuals and businesses.  The notion that the defendant isn't allowed to depose the complainants is nowhere in the law, and I suspect it never occurred to the legislators who voted to pass it that a state bureaucrat would make such an outrageous ruling.  But of course bureaucrats always grab more power and authority unless slapped down hard by some judge.

Which almost never happens.

The effect of such rulings on job creation should be obvious:  When bureaucrats (or judges, for that matter) make "rulings" and "orders" like this--which happens almost every day--it's hard to imagine why any rational person would start a business in the U.S. today.

If you're interested in the law, the full "Order" in the case is here.  If you own a business it's a frightening document.