Those restrictions are also infringements on the rights of a private property owner who happens to operate a business. Do you think additional infringements are OK, as long as you agree with them? I don't. Wrong is wrong.
And as I posted, if you think the 2A (which was intended to restrict the government, not individuals) allows you to exercise those rights on my property against my wishes, what of my counter example of holding a political rally on your business' property? Is not that a restriction of my 1A rights? Is that then allowed by virtue of the same argument?
The law of the land is that businesses cannot prohibit women, Italians and democrats from employment or from entering their parking lots, and that is not going to change in the foreseeable future no matter how loud you scream about it.
You are advocating for firearms to be restricted in ways that other "rights" that are not enumerated in the Constitution are not restricted. The Supreme Court held in McDonald v. Chicago
that the Second Amendment cannot be relegated to a second class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.
When we advocate for parking lot carry, we are just asking the government to follow the Constitution as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court. You are advocating for something other than the government that we have. Would you advocate for a government that can make a law that allows an employer to order their employees not to resist being beaten or raped, i.e., to refrain from self-defense? The framers of our nation did not distinguish between the right to self-defense and the right to use arms. Do you think they were wrong?
And holding a political rally is not the same thing as someone who has a tool of self-defense in their private car.
The legal misconceptions abound.
First, discrimination by public accommodations on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, or national origin are prohibited by statute, not the Constitution, the most notable statutory authority being the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Heart of Atlanta Motel
was not about whether people had a Constitutional right against discrimination, but whether the United States Congress could pass an act which prohibited businesses from discriminating. People constantly
confuse this because they have some idea of the outcome, but they don't understand the law.
Second, prohibitions against public accommodation discrimination on the basis of political affiliation are not based on the Constitution, either, and there are very few statutory prohibitions, DC being the most notable. Employment discrimination based on political affiliation may
be prohibited when applied against government
employees, but that, too, is statutory, not Constitutional (Civil Service Reform Act of 1978), and it only applies if political affiliations do not negatively affect job performance.
Third, the Second Amendment applies against the government, not against private enterprises. I have heard many, many people who insist differently, but they have zero legal basis for making that claim; they just yell, "Shall not be infringed!" a little bit louder. The Second Amendment is the same as all the others in the original Bill of Rights: it is a limitation on government action, not private acts. If we want to prohibit private employers from prohibiting firearms in their parking lots, we will need to enact a statute by majority vote of the Ohio General Assembly, just like some other states have done. The courts are not in position to intervene under the Constitution.