There is virtually zero chance that a bar would be found guilty of illegal discrimination for banning an individual woman unless there were witnesses or recordings establishing that they did so specifically on the basis of gender. Proving discrimination, even by the lower standards of civil court, generally requires either a well-documented pattern of behavior or (as mentioned above) evidence that the customer was banned due specifically to their gender.

There's literal precedence for this, what are you on about?

Guess you could do a reverse "lady's night" and only charge women instead of the inverse.

the entire reason would still be that they're a woman.

you can't refuse service to _any_ protected class on the weekends because ... you can't refuse service to protected classes for being in that protected class.

... unless you are uniformly refusing service to everyone.

Everyone is equal, but some people are more equal than others.

In other words it's a blueprint for discrimination: you can't fire someone because he is homosexual, instead you fire him for the colour of his hair. It's nuts.

> In the interim I wish they would stop beating around the bush and simply call it "not a straight White cis man".

That's not what "protected class" means, in any of the contexts in which it is used (employment, public accommodation, housing, etc.)

To the extent it seems like it means that, that's only because, well, the historically privileged are more likely to be in a position to discriminate in favor of those like themselves.

In each of those contexts, race (not "being non-white") is a protected class; it is just as illegal to discriminate against White people in any of those contexts as it is to discriminate in favor of White people.

For each of the other descriptors which actually relates to a protected class, it works the same way where it does.

> It's far fewer words with the exact same meaning as listing all the things that are 'protected', and has an air of honesty about it.

It doesn't have the exact same meaning at all.

The idea that you can't tell someone else what they can do with a thing once it has been sold traces back to common law. Here is a Supreme Court example from 1911:

"The right of alienation is one of the essential incidents of a right of general property in movables, and restraints upon alienation have been generally regarded as obnoxious to public policy [and have] been generally held void." -Miles Medical. v. Park

I can't point you to a specific code that prohibits this because it depends entirely on what grounds Tesla would claim the right to impose such restrictions. For example if they claim that parts of the Cybertruck are patented, the exhaustion doctrine would apply. From Wikipedia: "once an authorized sale of a patented article occurs, the patent holder's exclusive rights to control the use and sale of that article are said to be 'exhausted,' and the purchaser is free to use or resell that article without further restraint from patent law. However, under the repair and reconstruction doctrine, the patent owner retains the right to exclude purchasers of the articles from making the patented invention anew"