I don't believe the debate makes little sense to you.
I suspect it has challenged some long standing assumptions.

Of course banks and shops were wary about masks. Prior to COVID, there were two types who wore masks. The medically infirm (including the mentally ill), and those wishing to conceal their identity (usually for nefarious purposes).

As for Gun Free Zones, well that's a topic for another discussion, but I will say I despise them.

But then you NAILED IT; you wrote: ",,, EVERYONE was banning them and they had NOWHERE to shop."
And that is EXACTLY why I wrote that the shopkeeper was the one who instigated the fight!

The shopkeeper, and so many like her are perfectly content to see the non-maskers have no place to shop, no place to eat, no place to purchase, and no place to live! I'm sure you can extrapolate to there that attitude will lead?

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out. Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out. Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out. Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me; and there was no one left to speak for me.

-- Martin Niemöller

The only difference is that this time it's the Socialists who are coming after the little groups they can carve out of the population.

I do hope that makes sense to you. I also hope you always have the freedom to take your business elsewhere. I'll leave you with:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
― Samuel Adams

But would you be as agreeable, if a shop owner refused to allow people WITH masks, to enter. Banks did it for years.
Same goes for "Gun Free Zones". I have yet to see a successful challenge to one of those.

The issue you brought up, about minorities (and the handicapped, if you like) was that EVERYONE was banning them and they had NOWHERE to shop. This was wrong, and was addressed with new laws.

For me, in the end, this debate makes little sense, when I can simply take my business elsewhere.

you wrote: "Posting your policies prior to entry is the exception."

OK, let's say I agree. What's the legal definition of a "maskhole"? I for one, would not take such a posting seriously, it's more like a joke.

What is the sign read: "No Hymies" Would that be perceived as anti-Semitic or as an inside joke that Dick Gautier & Patrick Warburton are not allowed to to robot jokes?

Please don't talk to me about the Gulch, it's a fictional setting. This was a real world encounter, it ended badly.

We are on the edge of a slippery slope. The government cannot adopt general prohibitions against the unmasked without significant pushback. So they recruit Ignorant Zealots aka Useful Idiots like the shopkeeper to do the dirty work.

Again, I think all parties involved were wrong in one or more ways. I'm not defending anyone, but I am trying to defend everyone. We cannot allow the thin veneer of civilization to be so easily scraped off. All three went at it with a vengeance and a mission; as wrong as they each were about their motives.

Posting your policies prior to entry is the exception. A patron, with a myriad of options to go elsewhere, has foreknowledge of the stores policy and can choose to spend money elsewhere. No one HAS TO shop in any or all stores, and there are other options.
"No shoes, No shirt, No service. We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason."

"a shopkeeper has essentially forfeited certain aspects of that right by opening a venue to the public."

Nonsense. What forfeit is a portion of your wealth to the city, state and other municipalities; all dependent on your success as an owner. The only harm that comes from the owner setting a policy to enter and shop is that the owner loses money should the potential patron choose not to shop there, but the city and state still get paid regardless. Neither the patron, nor the city, nor the state own the business nor do they stand to suffer anything by it not doing well The choice is theirs where to shop. Usually for a business turning people away is a self inflicted wound.

I wonder what Reardon would say about this?

Well, yes, and no. I 100% agree that a person or a business has the fight to refuse to enter into a 'binding contract with negotiated specific performance' with any other entity for ANY reason whatsoever.

However, a shopkeeper has essentially forfeited certain aspects of that right by opening a venue to the public. A retail establishment is an open 'offer-to-tender' and what that means in our society is that the business shall not discriminate against a customer based on any number of overtly displayed characteristics, e.g. race, creed, sex, religion, disability, and a host of other 'protected classes' (some of which I agree with others that I do not).

Can you imagine a Jewish establishment refusing to serve a patron because the customer didn't have a yarmulke and refused to wear one?

Because that's literally the most apt comparison I can make. The hyper-maskers are operating on a belief that the mask will protect them.

In this video we didn't even see the pair of troublemakers do the equivalent of something deeply sacrilegious, except try to explain to the shopkeeper that she had an obligation to serve the public by virtue of her having an open for business retail establishment.

If she were adamant, she could have said "I'm closing the store right now, you must leave." Then her argument would have carried a lot more weight. Because in that case the pair would have been interfering with the owners conducting of HER business!!!

I think the bat was brought in because they refused to listen to reason. At that point the woman, apparently alone, felt anything could happen and sought to assert a degree of 'respect' to the two troublemakers by evening the odds. Unfortunately for her she got too close and lost the advantage.

A visible threat is intimidation, just as two unruly people are seeking to intimidate. Force? More like coercion through intimidation.

I don't see much about the store owner that I care for, but it is her establishment. Her house, her rules.

If those statues Commander posted apply then it is a law that's run amok. They didn't need to be there. They could have shopped elsewhere. When asked to leave they could have, and avoided all conflict and the consequent arrest. The only loss by them not being in that store was financial and that was to the owner.

Isn't barring certain patrons a distinct right that we, in The Gulch, solidly defend for business owners?

As for your last paragraph, I am in total agreement.

Except she’s probably a communist. Soooooo........
Additionally, based on her desired paradigm, the sign represents HATE speech. And we’ve been told over and over that we must confront HATE head on. And words hurt now. 😢
(Yes I’m being sarcastic.)
I give the owner 2 points for being willing to defend her convictions.
And the couple 2 points for being willing to confront a maniac.
It’s a Win-Win!

Apples & Oranges comparison.

The shopkeeper made a distinction based solely on the appearance of the 'customer'.

I don't recall any stores barring patrons simply because they were wearing an Obozo 'Change' tee-shirt. And that's in spite of ample evidence that the wearers of those particular tee-shirts wear many times more likely to be perpetrators of armed robbery than their more recent MAGA-hat wearing counterparts!

And while I agree that ownership does matter, her remedy was to refuse to serve the pair and to actually call the police if she believed she was in the right. Nothing the pair did warranted a threat of physical violence with a baseball bat.

Great point.

It is her place of business. The fact they knew her conditions for entry makes their actions per-meditated. They do not own the establishment or have any vested interest in its success.

Objectively, I would think OWNERSHIP matters.

You say the owner started the conflict, with her sign.

To be fair, what if the owner put a "Let's Go Brandon" sign out front, and two Biden supporters accosted her...?

I agree. They WANTED the altercation and were very prepared for it, evidence the filming before it even started.

Gotta tell you Commander, this was an eye opening Post. Congrats. Gotta share with you. I served on 3 Grand Juries. On one two women got in a fight. One had a knife, the other a gun. The police arrested the one with the gun. I argued the knife was a deadly weapon and I wanted the knife weilding one arrested also. The GJ agreed.

I also thought they were going too far trying to get the owner of the store to change their mind. If I were requested to leave I would go immediately. However the store owner should have called the police, not pull a weapon and attack.

Meh. Two wrongs don't make a right. But the store owner started the conflict with the chalk sign.

She owns the business and all it’s non-tangible fulfillment activities
Who ever challenged her on her property should be considered a barbarian.
She should be able to sell, employ, offer compensation as she sees fit.

The mask-less couple are a literally a couple of trouble-makers -- agitators -- they are Maskholes and do no service to the rest of us that do not wear a mask -- and also choose to leave other individuals to make their own choices.
The business owner can refuse service to anyone, for any reason. Good on her for having the baseball bat.
The masks are essentially useless -- a component of virtue signaling -- and are potentially harmful in terms of restricting proper respiration.
The whole damn social engineering crap is getting old -- it is divisive, as designed, and is working in context of those who insist on arbitrary mandates for the creation of a compliant population.
I am reminded of Palpatine's statement near the end of Star Wars -- Return of the Jedi "Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design."

Me dino never would have been arrested or even saw that lunatic's baseball bat.
Me woulda said something in the neighborhood of "Fine. You just cheated yourself out of making a profit. Also, I'll never do business with this store. Not ever. I'll tell everyone I know about this stupid place also. Have a nice day."
Reminds me of a convenience food store that knew me so well I could put gas in my car and go inside to pay for it along with a six pack too. One day I just came in for a six pack and was handed a bill for sixteen dollars and something cents
and accused of putting gas in my car and driving off without paying. I said I had never ever done that. Guy said, :"You have a red car." Me dino said, "I know I have a red car." Guy said, "You have a white dog." Me dino said, "I do not have a white dog." Guy said, "I saw you with a white dog." Me dino said I had been coming to that store for years and years and about ten years ago often wearing the uniform of a corrections officer (only buying beer on my way home, of course).. Then I said "I'm not coming here anymore," left the six pack on the counter and walked out. Me dino has to drive by that store to get gas at a store that also has a really good deli. When I see a certain car parked at the store I shall never ever enter again, I so happily wave!

This has all the earmarks of a planned setup that didn't go the way it was planned. The bullies lost!

The police were backing a private property owner...not a state owned liquor store.

If it had been my store, I would've call the cops. Had they approached me, I would've pulled my gun.

Gee, I would've guessed it was San Francisco...

Craziness! Insanity!

The two people who felt challenging an enraged women wielding a baseball bat showed that they were clearly a few fries short of a Happy Meal. Would they have been so bold, had she pulled a gun? After all, the owner could claim she was in fear for her life (from Covid infection). Remember the cop who was spit on by the AIDS infected man he was arresting?

We, in the mask-free community, really don't need people like this as our spokespersons. I hope they enjoyed their time in jail and associated fines.

" I think they manufactured this event simply to enhance their "influencer" status of youtube"

Yep, bingo. No matter the statutes - won't even argue them....THIS is the reason they did it. (edited spelling typo).

Didn't expect anything different from the police. It was ruled by the supreme court that the police are here to protect the state, not the public. That is what they are doing. I don't back the blue anymore. When they will arrest mothers in an empty park for not wearing a mask with their children and let cities burn claiming the protests are mostly peaceful it is apparent they support tyranny not freedom.