Actually, the basis of my argument is that the law makes it fairly clear that a sign is necessary for a business to eject a customer because they are armed, or to expect LE to fine them for refusing to leave after being asked to for the reason of having a gun. The law states the necessity of having a sign, twice....
No, you've looked at one statute. You've not considered the full body of Oklahoma law that may bear on the question. The reality is that you haven't done the work necessary to know and therefore are in no position to opine in such sweeping terms.
...if the customer refused and it went to court, it strikes me...
How things "strike" you has nothing to do with reality.
....if you tell someone to leave without giving them a reason, you become open to accusations that the reason was due to something protected, like race or religion....
Yes some reasons for ejection might be protected by federal or state law, e. g., race, religion, sexual orientation. If one wants to complain that he was discriminated against, he must be able to present evidence supporting
prima facie his contentions. If then is up to the defendant to present evidence that his actions were for a non-protected reason. That is always a possibility.
.... you can ask an armed man to leave only if you met the legal requirement of having a sign.
How would you know? You've presented absolutely no applicable legal authority to support that claim. The existence of a statute providing a remedy does not automatically make that particular statute the exclusive remedy -- unless a court of competent jurisdiction has so ruled.
And sometimes, instead of discussing the argument, you engage in an ad hominem about the person making it. ...
Phooey!
The reality is that you lack the foundational knowledge necessary to actually understand the subject matter. Instead you seem to think that because you have an IQ of 140 (as you previously claimed) you automatically can figure out the answer to Life, The Universe, And Everything (which is 42, by the way). But smarts aren't enough. Folks still need to know things.
Some of us have that foundational knowledge because we've (1) gone to school specifically to acquire it; and (2) because we continued to acquire it during the course of careers which directly required that we put that knowledge to purposeful use. Others, like Sam, haven't gotten so ego involved in the fact that they're smart that they've forgotten that they still had stuff to learn, and put out the effort to learn.
