Can private property owners deny folks constitutional rights?
Do you have constitutional rights (like 1st, 2nd, 14th etc) on Starbucks and ChicFiLa private property?

Can a restaurant post a ~ NO GUNS OR TURBANS ~ sign?
If they change the sign to ~ NO GUNS OR HATS ~
is it ok then, cause it dont single out Turbans?
Sure the 1st and 2nd amendment clearly affirm the peoples rights to bear arms and bear religious turbans, but we see a large segment of the population declaring it OK to deny folks their rights if its on Starbucks PRIVATE property.

If Starbucks can deny 2nd amd Gun Rights in its private property restaurants,
cant ChikFiLa deny 1st amd Turban Rights in its private property restaurants as well?

Some people fear guns, and some people fear turbans.
We see folks say its ok for Starbucks to deny rights to a stereotype because of their fear.
Just now we see a Kansas City Olive Garden KICK OUT AN ON-DUTY UNIFORMED POLICE OFFICER because of their fear of guns policy. (Certainly it was over gun fear, it couldnt be a hate crime discrimination against all cops over the past crimes of a few cops... that would be no different than denying service to all Blacks over the past crimes of a few Blacks... and OliveGarden certainly wouldnt be hate crime discriminating any groups )

Is it ok to allow gun & hat folks onto Starbucks and ChicFiLa property
but only after they lock up their guns and hats in their car
... denying them their 1st & 2nd amd rights to guns and religious turbans?
or
do Starbucks and ChicFiLa etc have to respect 1st 2nd 14th rights of people on their property?

Do our constitutional amd Turban / Gun / Skintone Rights end at someones property line
if they choose to fear our gun / turban/ skintone due to crimes by others with our gun/hat/skin?