It's a sticky situation here and something that seems to confuse people in this thread because the first two charges are valid and would have resulted in the same outcome. If it was just that one charge it would be much clearer as to how this is a terrible, regressive and shortsighted law.
But it has never been used as a standalone charge. In the four years that this law exists, this is the first time it has been used. You're making a huge deal out of something that's barely newsworthy.