While I LIKE that, I don't know how he won. Couldn't the defense simply say that he had the choice of not coming in and doing business. "No one forced him to go in there. If he had a principled objection, he could have stood on that principle and not 'agreed' to go in."
I get sickened by that kind of argument; it angers me. The idea behind it is that if every place made such a rule, it would squeeze us for places we could go to.
Technically, in Texas, if EVERY STORE IN THE STATE decided to post an official "30.06" sign, you could find yourself unable to legally carry into ANY BUSINESS, right? The saving grace is that they don't all bother to do it. That's not much of a safety net, to me.