Businesses don't restrict rights -- people (who own businesses) do.
No person has the right to enter another person's property. That's the principle that falsifies your premise. No person's rights were restricted. That's all that need be said.
But since you came out to play...
Freedom of association is the root of objective law in society. It takes two people to mutually agree to associate with one another. It takes just one person to refuse to associate with another person -- just say "no". Only when freedom of association is violated does a person have probable need to defend themselves -- such as a business owner defending his business/property against a person that violates store policy/rules.
Ignorance proclaims that an equal man at home becomes a second-class citizen when he goes to his store/business. Or does it include that a person in their home can't make his own gun rules/policy?
Governments don't restrict rights -- people do.
I often use the phrase, "politicians and bureaucrats" rather than "government", when making reference. It differentiates from people. Sometimes I just go with "parasitical elites in government".
Employees are given permission to enter & park their vehicles on the employers property. -- It is an unreasonable infringement to ban guns from being locked up in those vehicles.
Freedom of association is [one of] the root[s] of objective law in society.
Protection of individual rights is another.
It takes two people to mutually agree to associate with one another. It takes just one person to refuse to associate with another person -- just say "no".
'Just say no' to autocratic businessmen who seek to disarm employees.
Only when freedom of association is violated does a person have probable need to defend themselves -- such as a business owner defending his business/property against a person that violates store policy/rules.
Senseless 'rules' that infringe on employees rights to carry arms to and from work cannot be tolerated in a free republic.
Ignorance proclaims that an equal man at home becomes a second-class citizen when he goes to his store/business.
Ignorance proclaims that an equal man at home becomes a second-class citizen when he goes to work disarmed by his employers 'rules'.
Or does it include that a person in their home can't make his own gun rules/policy?
A person in their home can make his own gun rules/policy, affecting only a few visitors. Employers infringements on carrying affect all their employees & customers. -- And contravenes our 'law of the land'.
As to your "principle," if you as my employer were to give me the key to your house and direct me to go into your house on a work related errand, I would not only have the right to enter your property (because you had given me the right for a particular purpose), I would have an obligation to do so as your employee.
"...such as a business owner defending his business/property..."
Your statement supports what I wrote. "Businesses don't (insert your own verb whether it be "restrict" or "defend" or whatever and add an object) -- people (who own businesses) (such as a business owner) do."
"I often use the phrase..."
Well, we seem to have one point of agreement.