Your gracious apology isn't necessary, I don't think you were being rude at all.
What portion of the constitution do they violate?
In my opinion, these bans are "takings" under eminent domain.
Many businesses have suffered great economic harm and many have been forced to close due to these bans. The bans were forced on the owners, yet none were compensated for the economic losses caused solely by government force.
The government can levy high taxes without on items without it being considered "taking" under eminent domain.
The government does have the power to make things illegal, and often doing so has financial consequences, and I've never heard of a court upholding it as taking and demand compensation.
By that argument the government couldn't outlaw abortion without compensating abortionists for lost revenue.
You could even argue that assassins should be compensated for not being permitted to murder people.
If regulating becomes taking that must be compensated for, the government couldn't regulate much of anything. You'd basically have anarchy.