[Glenn E. Meyer]

But the problem here is 'behavior'. We forbid banning on the basis of religion.

Religion is a behavior - it is not an immutable aspect of your biology. You can change your religion (yeah, you can change your 'gender' - but not your chromosomes).

Folks change religion all the time.

Thus, protected classes based on behavior are possible and thus SD should be one. Why discriminate against folks who want to protect themselves as compared to believers in X, Y or Z?

Some countries do ban behaviors based on religion or have debated it. In the USA - drug usage by some religions has been controversial. In France, the religious garb of some has been used to deny entrance to public schools.

I propose that the behavior of carrying is directly related to the biological imperative of preserving yourself and thus has a more sensible and direct basis not to be banned as compared to a nonbiological based belief system - which you can easily change so as to go to that merchant.

I do agree about sensitivity and proguns having sheeple tantrums get us nowhere. I recall after some school shooting, the principal being highly offended when some 'well-known" gun school started to bray about free gun lessons. While such might be nice, it was an offensive PR stunt and didn't take into account the emotional impact of such at that moment in time.