[DoodleDawg]

Seems to me that the proprietors - in both cases - are denying commerce based on how you look.

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.

[redfog]

“Is that the same for ‘no shoes, no shirts, no service’ policies?”

I would have to know the reasons for that policy before answering.

I am glad that law and legal decisions are not the definitive reason for the actions we ought to take.