Ahh, good old ambiguous laws strike again. You read it and might think guests applies to non paying customers. I read it and see it only applying to their gues

Ahh, good old ambiguous laws strike again. You read it and might think guests applies to non paying customers. I read it and see it only applying to their guests, i.e. patrons of their restaurant. 3rd person might interpret as simply meaning the restaurant determines who is a guest and it can swing either way. 4th person is a lawyer and thinks some random other part of this document or other law or court case defines guest therefore his interpretation is correct. 5th person is like, we don't care, public access to toilets is a human right and proclaims the first 4 are bigots and such restaurants are to be sued. 6th person starts an organization to catalog all misbehaving restaurants and labels them discrimatory. And so it goes, and will go on till the end of time.