They are not, because such bans are a voluntary agreement. What you want is for the state to disallow the ability of employers to make the agreement a condition of employment. However, I do think such bans are infringements of RKBA when they exist, as they do, on public property.
"You are letting your beliefs blind you to the truth. These bans are orchestrated by the brady bunch faction, imo."
In fact I recognize that and stated as much in a prior post. I don't know whether or not the liability claims are bogus, but I consider that corporations do this because they want to appear politically correct. Which is reprehensible, but within their rights. The point is that, as Exsoldier noted, your freedom ends at the point it interferes with the freedom of another. In this case, it ends at the freedom of the property owner to control what may be carried by another onto his own property.
"Parking your car in a private or public lot does not "extend your home" by any stretch.."
Here, we agree, regarding private lots. The car is an extension of the home on public lots, IMO. Should be, that is.
They are not, because such bans are a voluntary agreement.
Hardly. Ever hear of coercion? Most rational people are fighting these infringements tooth & nail.
What you want is for the state to disallow the ability of employers to make the agreement a condition of employment.
Every state is obligated by our constitution to defend its citizens against conditional, coercive scams that infringe on individual rights.
As I mentioned in my first post, some posters are falling into the liberal trap of thinking that corporate property is public property.
As I mentioned in some of my posts, some people here are falling into the trap of thinking that corporations are defending 'property rights'. Not so, -- they are trashing individual employees 2nd, 4th & 14th Amendment rights.