This will be the last time I will try to explain this to you.

All of those solutions are perfectly fine and acceptable if done voluntarily by the business owner. You are free to criticize and boycott any store that does not conform to your moral standards, and only patronize those businesses that do so conform. You are free to use any form of voluntary advocacy available to you to try to ensure that all of society believes what you do.

What you are not free to do is to use the government to mandate your preference to every business. This particular ordinance overrides voluntary conduct and mandates that local stores shield certain poorly-defined "offensive" content from public view. That is indisputably a violation of the First Amendment (also likely a due process violation for lack of adequate notice about what content is allowed or prohibited, but that's another issue). There is absolutely no counterargument or dispute on this issue, at least not in the United States. This has been settled law for decades now.

Just because you agree with the end result does not mean you have to agree with the means used to achieve it. I urge you to try to understand the distinction.