Hill v. Colorado: Content-neutral or Viewpoint-based?

Suppose in 1950 Alabama passed a law creating an 8-foot floating buffer zone restricting oral protests, education or counseling within 100 feet of any segregated restaurant or commercial establishment?

Or in 1970, after complaints about anti-war protests directed at Dow Chemical for supplying napalm to the US military, Congress passes a law prohibiting "picketed focused at the place of business of any business engaged in supplying chemicals to the United States Armed Forces?"

Is this law, which restricts speech on public sidewalks and streets, constitutional? Is it content-neutral? Is it viewpoint-based?

Would it forbid someone from approaching a person on the sidewalk in front of a diner and saying: "I am here to praise Alabama's mandatory segregation laws"? Does it matter that the restriction singles out certain places--segregated restaurants and commercial establishments--for the speech restriction?

What about a law that restricted speech on the sidewalk "within 100 feet of any business that is the subject of a labor dispute"?

Or a law creating a bubble zone within 100 feet of "any business engaged in the sale or manufacture of military weapons and national defense materials"?