I think this answer starts in a misleading manner. The "No" seems to imply that the claim is debunked, while actually the claim was likely true at the time of publication. I would think that "Yes, it used to" would be a more accurate start.

@MatthieuM. I think that the actual exception was less strong than the article suggests, which makes "no" a better answer. If there were a nonwhite person there who had stated that they were not concerned about racial profiling or harassment related to wearing a mask, but refused to wear a mask for some other reason (not covered in the exceptions listed), the order would not exempt them. Whether or not such a situation could be identified and addressed seems shaky, but skin color alone is not the exemption. The lack of penalty also cuts against the idea of a requirement for anyone.

@MatthieuM.: That depends on how you interpret "race-specific health laws", I guess. First off, this is not a law, it is a directive, so that alone means that when you start to go down the rabbit hole of nitpicking, the answer is "No". And secondly, I don't see this as a race-specific health law, but more as a race-specific safety law. And, as we have unfortunately been reminded, a black person with a mask entering a store, and a white person with a mask entering a store, may be perceived very different, so it makes sense to treat them differently. The law doesn't claim that there is a …

… health reason to exempt people of color, it specifically lists non-health concerns.

@MatthieuM.: As I said in my answer, the article was published on the same day as the directive was updated, which is why I said there is 'currently' no requirement. Regardless of timing, there was never a requirement like the article claims, as they are guidelines that aren't being enforced. So of the two claims ("there is an exception" to a "requirement") the answers are 'not now' and 'never', so I was comfortable leading with a 'no'.

You say "no", then list a reference that says "yes". Why not just say "yes"?

@JörgWMittag, "law" was my own addition and an apparently incorrect abbreviation of "government order." The claim of significance in question isn't mine but rather the New York Post.

The exception "Children over the age of 2 but under the age of 12 are encouraged to wear face coverings but not required to do so." seems to indicate the mask directive is a REQUIREMENT for anyone non-exempt.

@Underminer The directive states that it will not be enforced in any way and that it is intended to elicit voluntary compliance. Masks are encouraged for all and expected for the non-exempt, but not actually required for anyone.

@nuclearwang the language says "shall" which indicates a requirement. The except population from 2-12 is encouraged but not required. Just because enforcement action can't be undertaken is irrelevant.

@Underminer We can quibble over definitions, but a requirement generally has consequences if it is not met. The statement "compliance is required, but voluntary" is rather self-contradictory - it can't be both. If anyone is expressly allowed to disregard a requirement for any reason (or no reason at all), it's not really a requirement, is it? You're arguing the directive amounts to "masks are required but optional".

@nuclearwang Masks are NOT optional (for non-except people), so you are misinterpreting me. MW definition of require: "to claim or ask for by right and authority". Enforcement is not necessary for a requirement. Feel free to share your definition.

@Underminer The directive states that it "is intended to induce voluntary compliance". Compliance is not mandatory, it is voluntary - i.e., optional.

@nuclearwang Page 2 line 30 of the updated text document. "Face covering requirements herein..." The directive from Oregon states directly it is a requirement. It can't be any more clear.

"induce voluntary compliance" sounds a lot like good ol' fashion political doublespeak...

@user91988 The OP asks two questions, one of which is "Does Lincoln County, OR require only white people to wear masks?" ... the answer to which is NO. The second question is "Does Oregon county actually have race-specific health orders?" ... the answer to which is NO. It did, but does not any longer. How does NO = YES? (The italics in the first question added by me)

@user91988 If, however, you choose to view a statement with shall in it to be a requirement, then I'll modify how I wrote the first question to be, "Does Lincoln County, OR require only white people to wear masks?" The answer would still be NO. If you choose to regard shall as a requirement, then I would point out that exempting "People of color who have heightened concerns about racial profiling and harassment due to wearing face coverings in public" means that People of color who DON'T have heightened concerns .... will be required to wear face masks.