> I really don't understand this backing of the state here.

You're just letting your pet peeves color your perceptions. I'm not backing anything here, I'm pointing out that if you're licensing the title of engineer then it makes sense to protect that license and therefore penalise people claiming the title without being licensed.

> There is a vast gulf between stating one is an engineer […] and that one is a PE.

In Oregon, before this lawsuit, there was not.

> Reminds me of zero tolerance rules at schools, where adults claim that they can't understand the difference between two very different things.

Yes, your comment also reminds me of people refusing to understand basic concepts.

The simple point was that Oregon's position was foolish. You keep pointing to Oregon's position as if it makes any sense. When one sees a bad government policy used improperly you don't usually state "But the state says so, so I guess it's just the way it is".

It's a bad position and this case is an example of why it's a bad position.

You stated that "If he claimed to be an engineer (which he acknowledges) and the state claims the title for licensing (which it did) then you can't enforce that licensing without some sort of penalty."

Of course you can. He didn't build bridges for pay, which is the type of engineering the law is clearly about. He just stated that he was an "engineer".

But yes, I'm the simplistic thinker, for pointing out that shades of gray exist in your black and white definition of things.