For a retail store to impose it's religious beliefs on consumers is improper IMHO.
And I'd agree, if I thought that was what was happening. But refusing on conscience grounds to sell a certain product that is readily available elsewhere is not imposing anything on anyone.
To state "Christian" reasons for removing a product is also inappropriate.
Why? Doesn't a Christian have a right to act in accordance with his faith? If the managers of Wal-Mart are Christians, why is it inappropriate for them to acknowledge their beliefs as their reasons for doing things? Are they supposed to make up some "business" reason, in order not to "offend" anyone by declaring their Christianity? If a Muslim owns a store, should he be required to sell pork products? Or must he come up with a "business" reason for not doing so in order not to "impose" his personal beliefs on others?
Especially if the administration of their "Christian" rationale is not evenly distributed.
I agree, but it's their right to be hypocritical if they want to, just as it's your right to object to their hypocrisy and to boycott their store. I do find it a bit inconsistent that they would refuse to sell Maxim, yet continue to carry, for example, Cosmopolitan. But apparently that seems appropriate to them, and they do not see it as being inconsistent. I'm not their judge.
Firearms. I suppose it is Wal-Mart's Christian belief that everyone should own a gun also? You can't buy men's magazines at Wal-Mart, but you can buy Seventeen or Cosmopolitan with naked women on the front discussing sex or buy a rifle to blow someone's brain out.
As far as guns, there are legitimate uses for guns (e.g., sport hunting), and the second amendment is still in effect, last I heard. The fact that guns can be used to murder people does not mean that is the purpose for their being sold. You can murder someone with a steak knife, too. Should we ban those?