accommodate people with disabilities we're here on a matter of st impression to decide whether private contractors are exempt from liability for violations of or in public office because this is an important court should be granted if the court decides to answer the question itself then the court should determine that is exemption does not extend to private contractors such as present and point should be allowed to amend his bring this action because they'd be covered by the local correctional facility exemption in the statute so why why is it a sensible result of the you know the same people doing the same thing but instead of being jail employees the that they followed by the public accommodation but it's not just about where the service is it's not just about a place is also about services and again the issue here is a is the private services local correctional facility is not providing the services so currently was across the street from the jail it doesn't make sense that there they would be subject to the law that is they're providing services was i guess what bothers me though if you have this exception for a local correctional facility we know that it's not a place of public accommodation and then you have up above under one a what a public accommodation is it something that popped into place or service offering to the public in the combination it just doesn't feel that natural to say that a medical facility within a cresent is offering a service to the public in a technical sense perhaps but it isn't in a normal more regular language usage way it doesn't really seem that it works then when you combine that with the exception for a local protected under the act both of those issues are straightforward issues of statutory interpretation and although the orient courts have not addressed that exact fact pattern they haven't defined what the statutory requirements are to be a it's offered to the public or it's open to the public and then the nd step is whether any of the sashed her by and here as a provider as medical services exclusively as a jail make of your friend argument that the important issue maybe the better of the argument but maybe the oregon supreme court to be the one to make that decision what's your response to that and what the oregon supreme court said is the most important factor is whether there's already controlling oregon precedent on the questions and it doesn't matter if that organs the controlling president is from the intermediate court  oregon there is the oregon courts have not confronted this precise fact pattern but they certainly have addressed what is and meaning as offerings that have a link and they've also addressed what is the class of persons who are covered by the act both of those  specifically compared the oregon public accommodation act with the title three of the a da and noted that it adopt it uses different terms and has much nearer coverage title three of the a applies much more broadly to any person or individual where as the oregon public accommodation this particular subsection only protects a customer or patron term at issue in this case and for that reason you would ask the court to a and the defendant doesn't have to provide services to every conceivable member of the human and fandom are only people that lived within a certain geographical area were entitled to the offenders and but there's still a