What right do you have to force someone to offer a product? None. If you do not like what someone offers, you cannot make them offer something else, and the fact that you would even consider a lawsuit to make them do so demonstrates this concept of rights — the desire to have your way at the expense of others. This view of rights does not respect anyone but the person noisily demanding said rights. It is a one-way street.
The true understanding of rights is a two-way street; it respects the desires of all, because all are equal before the law. In this view, rights do not depend upon societal strata or groups, but rather are foundational freedoms that are equally given to all, and which do not compel action from others, only forbid interference. For instance, you have the right to speak freely, but no-one must give you a TV show due to that right. You have the right to defend yourself, but nobody must buy you a pistol to do so. However, Congress cannot outlaw books (except in very rare situations), and neither can Congress circumscribe the ability to defend one’s self.
Again, to contrast, the first view of rights is a misuse of the word “right”, unless it is the “right not to be offended”, which is ridiculous on its face. You cannot compel everyone to agree with you, to like what you do, to do what you would do, or to live in a such way that you are never bothered. This is the wish list of a child, of a tyrant, of someone who does not respect other people, and probably cannot even acknowledge the existence of others of equal standing with hm or herself. However, in any society, you must first grasp that others want to do things in a way that suits them; you cannot compel them to obey you. Forcing others to comply fundamentally presumes an unequal society, a society comprised of strata, where some people have more rights than others.
The second view of rights understands that there are many people who desire rights, and that they are all to be respected, because everyone has the same rights. That is the very concept of a blindfolded justice, an impartial decider, and the jury by peers — impartiality and equality. In this view of rights, everyone has the right to offer whatever products they choose, and everyone has the right to shop where they will. No-one can compel you to buy a Ruger, and nobody can prevent you from boycotting Smith and Wesson.
However, what is increasingly clear in this age of rights and rites, is that only those who can acknowledge other people will ever grasp the idea of an equal and free society. Those who do not will rove about like ticking time bombs unhappy and perpetually frustrated that the world does not obey their whims. These people are trying to make the world fix problems that they must resolve themselves. No law can correct your immaturity, and no regulation will make you safe from every possible harm.
The future belongs to the strong and the fair, not to the proponents of inequality and favoritism.