I've sent my reply.
Bruce:
It's clear to me that you've already made up your mind on the matter. You consider the matter closed. That's fine, and my reply therefore could be meaningless to you. Nevertheless, I am going to give you some free advice intended to make you think, which admittedly, you may find it to be worth exactly what you paid.
American citizens are not given the right to carry a weapon. They are guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution that their government will not take away their God-given right to self defense. Respectfully, you are not stuck between patrons who agree with that right and patrons who irrationally fear the tools they might need to use. These patrons are not intimidated by guns, they are indoctrinated and uneducated about guns. The people who OC just want to be left alone, to go safely about their day and mind their own business.
Now, the purpose of concealed carry is to defend oneself and keep those uneducated people ignorant that you are armed and ignorant of the truth about firearms, but you do look unarmed and like a potential victim to a criminal. Meanwhile, the purpose of open carry is to defend oneself and to educate people, and to not look like a potential victim to a criminal. I say again, open carry is not meant to intimidate or flaunt, but to educate and as a deterrent for evil to beware. If you oppose open carry (you say you favor OC but your actions and words betray you), then you support their ignorance and your own, making them feel safer, while in reality making everyone less safe.
Regardless of how safe you try to make your parking lot and your establishment, evil still exists in the world, and it's ultimately each individual's right and responsibility to defend themselves and their loved ones from that evil. What do you do when faced with making a choice between losing the ignorant market share or losing the educated market share? You EDUCATE those ignorant patrons yourself. With your military history and carry experience, you are uniquely positioned to do just that. Then you are left with all educated patrons that not only feel safer, but are safer, and also remain patrons. Win-win-win.
You are of course correct that as proprietor, you make the rules regarding your private property, and your rules are final. That said, I don't agree that those patrons who left without paying were law breakers and here's why. You offered a service and they placed an order, you accepted their order and entered into contract with them, then you changed the terms of the contract. Had it been me, I'd probably have given you the chance to make good on your original contract or accept my departure without payment. But as proprietor, you make the rules, and you can change the rules, but how you did so mid-contract was poor form.
Perhaps with this different perspective, you may consider changing the rules for the better, for the safety of all concerned. I don't expect a reply, I know you consider the matter closed, I just hope I've made you think.
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-carry-discussion/7230-open-carry-argument.html
http://www.examiner.com/article/open-carry-deters-armed-robbery-kennesaw