Tom, you raise a very good point, and one that has bugged my Libertarian sensibilities for some time. If we view private property rights as important, and I think we all do here, then we have to respect the right of that property owner to allow or disallow anybody they wish on their property, no matter the reason. That means for ANY reason. If civil rights means, however, that a private property owner cannot restrict certain "protected classes", then who gets to determine what is and is not a protected class? Is not one of our most basic rights to self defense protected from discrimination then, much as a minority is? If not, what makes it OK to discriminate against someone exercising their natural right of self defense but not someone of color or sexual orientation, as we have heard on the news ad nauseum about the florist or bakers denying gay couples service?
The fact is, "protected classes" laws are a joke, and takes away the right of the private property owner to determine whom they wish to serve, and who they don't wish to associate with. I am against the idea of forced association. So if a business owner wants to keep me off the property, for any reason, including my firearm, that's fine. But as a private property owner, if I don't want to serve, say, Asian customers, that should be my right, as heinous and racist as you would, rightly, see it. It's my property...my business....my choice. There are many other businesses to associate with, and why would you want to associate as a customer with a business owner that has such hatred for you? Do you think they will do the job well once they are forced to do so for you? You cannot stop people from believing in long held and established dogma, as wrong as it may be. And it's their right to be as biased as they want, as a private entity.
Now the idea of GOVERNMENT not being allowed to discriminate is really the key issue here, because you cannot take away equal opportunity, and as long as the government is allowed to determine who can start their own business and conduct it, you have to grant those licenses without bias. Government was always meant to be restricted from discriminating, yet they often do, and the law has been bastardized to restrict the people instead, as so many laws have over the years. The bottom line though, is anti-discrimination laws cater to the minority and the perpetual victim society we have today, so they will vote the right way for the people who promote these freedom infringing laws. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
I guess what ultimately it comes down to is: is the VFW a government sponsored and subsidized operation, or is it entirely privately held?