Doubt this applies where its a city doing the contracting (and on such a massive basis), as opposed to individuals seeking lodging on their own.
Then again absurd notions can prevail in leftist courts.
“Doubt this applies where its a city doing the contracting...”
I didn’t look at the actual ban, but it appeared from the wording to be the actual people just trying to get rooms at hotels. If the hotels are not owned by the government, I don’t think they can usurp the property usage established for private owners. Nor can the private owners arbitrarily change their established policies to twist the laws if it is for a reason they can’t establish.
Could be interesting.
wy69