Starbucks arrests: Who gets to decide whether youre a patron or a trespasser?

[EffieBlack]

73. No it does not

Your interpretation of the law is not only wrong, it doesn’t even make any logical or legal sense.

If the owner’s permission - permission that can be granted or withdrawn for any reason whenever the owner so chooses - the rest of the statute, including the affirmative defenses wouldn’t even be necessary. It would just say that owners and their managers opening their premises to the public have full and unfettered right to remove patrons from their premises at will without notice for any reason and any person who does not immediately vacate when ordered to do so shall be guilty of trespassing.

It is presumed that by opening up their businesses to the public - and reaping the benefits that this accords to them - owners are GIVING their permission for all to access their premises, provided they comply with lawful conditions set forth by the business. And as long as they DO comply, they have a legal right and privilege to enter and remain there. This means that owner’s can’t arbitrarily and suddenly kick people out of public accommodations just because they feel like it.

The law is set up to protect the public from exactly the kind arbitrary foolishness that you believe an owner’s right. But an owner who opens up their business to the public is not free to just pick and choose who can come in and who must leave just because they say so.