I found this at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/1/The court ruled that on the legality of a New York City law,which forbade “discrimination based on … sex …” by:
“place of public accommodation, resort or amusement”
“has more than four hundred members”
“provides regular meal service”
“regularly receives payment . . . directly or indirectly from or on behalf of nonmembers for the furtherance of trade or business”
Well, I think something in bloom county might fit the first, but not the other three.And further, the law in question only applies to New York City.
I found this at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/1/The court ruled that on the legality of a New York City law,which forbade “discrimination based on … sex …” by:
“place of public accommodation, resort or amusement”
“has more than four hundred members”
“provides regular meal service”
“regularly receives payment . . . directly or indirectly from or on behalf of nonmembers for the furtherance of trade or business”
Well, I think something in bloom county might fit the first, but not the other three.And further, the law in question only applies to New York City.