what does it mean for a comedian to discriminate against a private citizen? there's no contract involved. there's no commercial activity at hand. the comedian has no authority over the audience.
so, i don't really think it matters if it's discrimination or not, because a comedian does not have any legal obligation to avoid discriminatory jokes.
of course, if you don't like his jokes, you don't have to let him perform in your venue and etc. but to establish damages, the tort has to be built on a duty to the person claiming them that was not met by the person being accused, and i just don't see how that exists, here.
rather, it seems like the judges were just enforcing their moral opinions, and that shouldn't be happening, at all.
you could consequently potentially see a ruling that agrees that the comedian was discriminatory in his remarks, but awards damages to $0 and even gives him backs costs for wasting his time.