Seems to me that the proprietors - in both cases - are denying commerce based on how you look.
The fact that one case has been previously adjudicated while the other case has not yet been considered legally seems beside the point.
Is that the same for 'no shoes, no shirts, no service' policies?
The fact that one case has been previously adjudicated while the other case has not yet been considered legally seems beside the point.
One case is covered by law and one isn't.