There's a photo of this guy in the article. He looks white. Maybe the lighting in the photo is way off, but I have a hard time believing that they profiled him based on his appearance.
Edit: The photo in the article is a good representation of his appearance. Here's another one.
Dude is literally the same color as I am, a light-skinned Black person, going by the picture, and yes, I’ve had clerks follow me in stores and white women clutch their purses when I pass, and every man in my family, all of whom are that color, have a “being pulled over by the cops” story, so I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to do here.
Maybe, if he asked me why I wouldn't sell him the spray paint without seeing his id. In that case, it would be an explanation of why the id-check policy exists, not an expression of my belief that he looked like a vandal. (Although by that point, I would suspect that he might be up to no good specifically because he was refusing to show me his ID.)
I had a noticably receding hairline before I was 25. I'd sell to someone who looked old enough to be his dad without needing id, but if I could get in trouble for not carding someone I should have carded, I wouldn't bet my job on the fact that he isn't an older-looking 24.
That picture doesn't look like "a white guy." You might not be sure he's Black, but he definitely looks "of color," at least. Enough for racism to play a part in the interaction.
Remember he just claims that they racially profiled him, he has no evidence of it other than they stopped him. They claim it was because they have a policy that they don't sell to anyone who looks under 25 without an ID...he's 32, not sure if I think he looks under 25, although I could easily see someone not having a good grasp on this and not being sure. It's not like he looks old.
His complaint is also that he brought in his grand father (lol) and they sold to him without an issue. Well, duh, I'm sure someone much older him doesn't look potentially under 25.