Absolutely spot on, Fergie.

Pete admittedly conjecture, ..but a probable scenario.   As others have said, and ashers also asserted, the discrimination was about the message, not the customer.

It is conjecture. It is a possible scenario, not probable. The judge agreed that it was discrimination against the customer. Read Fergie's post above. Read the ruling linked to or even skip right to the end where it says

Applying this reasoning, I find that the 1st Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for unlawful discrimination contrary to the provisions of the 2006 Regulations and the 1998 Order and cannot rely on the protection afforded by Art 9 of the Convention.

I give judgment in favour of the Plaintiff.   I would ask Counsel to address me on the issue of damages.

It is simple. It was judged to be discrimination and therefore it was. Unless another judge rules it was not there is no denying the fact and even then it could still be overturned.