I am thoroughly ensconced on the pointy edge of the fence on this question. I am pro-2A, and I am also pro private property rights. So how to resolve them is the issue.
For starters, we have to accept that there are laws that differentiate between businesses and individuals. Businesses may not discriminate against people on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, and a couple of other factors. But individuals can. Wal-Mart can't refuse entry to a negro because he/she is black or to a Pakistani because he/she is Muslim. But each of us is perfectly at liberty (legally, we're not doing morality here, at least not yet) to refuse admittance to our homes for any reason whatsoever, from "I don't like the color of your skin" to "you talk funny" to "I hate ___s."
So businesses must be different from individuals somehow. And places of business, must be different from private homes somehow. So, for purposes of making things capable of comprehension by my limited mentality, I'll say that (to me) businesses are "semi-private" (or "quasi-public"). They are not governmental or government-owned, so they aren't "public," but they depend on the public for their sustenance. If "the public" can't go in, the businesses can't survive. So government has decreed that if businesses want to allow some of the public in, they have to allow all of the public in. Or at least, most all of the public.
Businesses can still bar members of all classes from entry for non-discriminatory things like "No shirt, no shoes, no service." That treats everyone equally. One might argue that the same applies to guns. If you want to eat at Joe's luncheonette, you wear shoes and a shirt. If you want to eat at Joe's luncheonette, you leave your gun in the car.
Except that there is no "fundamental" Constitutional right to eat lunch while barefooted and shirtless. There IS a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. So I hold the position that a quasi-public place (remember, we are talking about places the Americans with Disabilities Act has defined as "Places of Public Accomodation") should not be allowed to discriminate against an individual because that individual is exercising a Constitutional right.
That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.
At least until someone shows me where I'm totally wrong. (Which is different from Cassandra's Daddy telling me he doesn't agree with me. It'd be the end of the world tomorrow if he DID agree with me)