He is not letting in all black people not some black people, therefore he is stereotyping based on race, which is both illegal and racist. The fact that he is also black means little.
The fact that he is black means your going to have to establish what you mean by racism. The one-time universal and only definition of racism started in use just prior to WWII, and as a pejorative it became increasingly loathsome in and following WWII. Naturally the experience of concentration camps and Nazi racial ideology made the accusation of racism extremely loaded, and not to be used lightly.
So until a few decades ago "prejudice" and "bigotry" described a behavior or unfair attitude ("pre-judging" of a person or group), while the Merriam-Webster dictionary of racism was (is)
“a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”
In other words, for a person to be racist or commit an act of racism required TWO elements, a belief or conviction that race itself was the primary determinant of their traits AND those differences produced an inherent (and implicitly proper) superiority of one race over another.
If you take a moment to reflect, I think you would agree that the Black business owner has not been shown to have BOTH elements (he might, but that has not been proven).
More importantly, the problem is your broader and far more sloppy usage derives from an intentional and increased hacking of the term in and since the 1980s. As the era of the civil rights movements and racial obsessions wound down, academics (many of them refugees from new left) became more desperate to exaggerate their moral lecturing of white society ...the common terms of "prejudice" and "bigotry" no longer did the trick. Those common terms had lost their power to sting. Something more was needed to keep the race card alive... "racism" and "racist".
Ahhh they found to accuse someone or something as "racism" and "racist" was far more powerful...regardless of whether if it fit or if it were true. It carried the implication hateful and irrational bias rooted in white supremacy and the evil era of concentration camps and eugenics. A "sin" of much greater proportions than tame "prejudice" or mere "bigotry".
It was a neat trick...move the definition of racism away from a person's individual belief and their motivated conduct in an act of discrimination to a whole new broader meaning: regardless of a person's belief, or their motivation or if they individually acted to discriminate, racism is now an end state - a thing. At best it is an invisible psychology, an attitude of (e.g. stereotyping) in the collective unconscious, and at worst any disparity or distinction which by its mere existence is racism.
Be that as it may, "stereotyping" (holding perception of differences between races, sexs, age groups, etc.) is not illegal nor the actual basis of racism, etc. Stereotyping is profiling, a categorization of traits associated with a variable, in this case race. It can be perfectly rational, and a truth. And truth is not a sin, except to the "progressive" Cotton Mather's who hold that one can actually sin by unconcious "wrong thoughts".
So while the black business owner may be in violation of a civil statute, he is not in violation of rational discrimination or its basis in truth. And so, by the universally accepted definition, it is not racism.
