It does represent the direction of federal government actions in many areas though, usually under the interstate commerce clause. This is not merely the sale of hotel accommodations or hamburgers either. Some ACLU type will suddenly remember the 2nd Amendment right and plead that these poor customers were denied access to that right.
We’ll see what happens. My whole comment was that I hoped the owner does not get sued for being candid in what is an emerging totalitarian state.
Thankfully, so far, the limits to public accommodation with respect to products that have moved in interstate commerce (Civil Rights Act 1964 Sec. 201, 42 USC 2000a(a)) is that who you voted for or your political party affiliation is not a protected class.
As for the ACLU, that would be quite possibly the first time the ACLU defended the 2nd Amendment, though I imagine that it would fail as the plaintiff would have to show that they were denied their right to “keep and bear arms”. Sufficient remedy would be to go to another seller.
Less likely to be sued, more likely to get an intense examination of his bound books by the BATFE to find any violation worthy of pulling his FFL.