You asked a lot of questions. I'll try to address them one by one.
Ok I can understand the Walmart scenario but does that also include someone exercising there religious speech?
Your 1A freedom of speech only protects you from the government arresting you for the content of your speech. If you are on private property (ie Walmart) and are making a scene and are asked to leave and refuse to do so, you can be arrested for trespassing. Except for some very specific circumstances, generally you could not be legally forced to leave from a truly public place, like a city park or the steps of the state capitol for expressing religious or political speech.
Also I had the impression that when they wrote the SDA that were over stepping their authority by adding that wording.
They wrote in the intent that;
TITLE 21 § 1290.25 LEGISLATIVE INTENT
The Oklahoma Self- Defense Act shall be liberally construed to carry out the constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense and self-protection. The provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act are cumulative to existing rights to bear arms and nothing in the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act shall impair or diminish those rights.
All this means is that any existing gun owners rights that were in effect before the SDA were still in effect (ie, things that were allowed like having a gun in your home or business, like open carrying a rifle while hunting, etc)
And then they also wrote;
TITLE 21 § 1290.22 BUSINESS OWNER’S RIGHTS
A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, nothing contained in any provision of the Oklahoma Self- Defense Act, Section 1290.1 et seq. of this title, shall be construed to limit, restrict or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of any person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity to control the possession of weapons on any property owned or controlled by the person or business entity.
And therefore imo should read unlawful weapons.
1290.22 seemed to contradict 1290.25 in that 1290.22 impairs or diminishes the right to bear arms.
See what I wrote above... I think you are reading too much into the "intent of the legislature" part.
So what are the laws that prohibit owners from discriminating on race or religion etc if not the bill of rights? I know about the labor laws against such things but those are for employees not patrons.
Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits racial discrimination in places of public accommodation, stating, ―[a]ll persons shall be entitled to
the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public
accommodation . . . without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Also the disabilities act not only protects the labor side but also provides for accessibility to the property mind you that it's public accessible private property or rental property and not ones private residence that those laws are enforceable on.
The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, State and local government, public accommodations, commercial facilities, transportation, and telecommunications. It also applies to the United States Congress.
To be protected by the ADA, one must have a disability or have a relationship or association with an individual with a disability. An individual with a disability is defined by the ADA as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment. The ADA does not specifically name all of the impairments that are covered.
I'm not aware of any other law that specifically allows a business to say that can ban someone from praising God (1st amendment)in their store like 1290.22 says they can against lawful weapons (2nd amendment).
This isn't really a good analogy. I mean, Title II prevents denying someone service under public accomodation for their religion, but if you made a scene, you could be thrown out and trespassed if you refused to leave.
Note that they titled it business owners not propery owners which also gives the impression of contradicting the intent to insure 2nd amendment rights. Now I also must say that it is not my desire to deny business owners or employers the right to protect their place or property nor is it my desire to deny the right for individuals the ability to protect themselves without having to endure undeserved hardships in that they have to sacrifice an otherwise good job or store just to ensure they can defend themselves should the need arise. But let's be realistic the banning of lawful weapons does not make anyone safer but more vulnerable and has the effect of denying our right to bear arms. Yeah we can shop somewhere else or go work somewhere else, but if they are the only supplier in the region or an employer can hang that over people's heads it has the effect of causing people to disarm or go jobless or pay higher prices to get the specialty items from farther away, how does that help business or economy or more importantly anyones safety?
You keep comparing discrimination against people who have no control over their skin color, their handicap, or their (in most cases) religion... to people who can choose to disarm before coming in the store. I'm sorry, but while you do have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, there isn't a court in the land who is going to say that you have a constitutional right to carry a gun into another man's privately owned place of business.
All of the above is my opinion, and is worth what you paid for it. I've studied some of this extensively. I have a disability that qualifies me for some protection from discrimination under that ADA, so I made it a point to learn that law (and a lot of relevant case law) as much as I could. I like to make sure I know what I'm doing when it comes to laws. Now I just hope I nested all the quote tags properly...lol