Yes, it is a fallacy, because in both cases it misrepresents the premise.
In the case of taxes, the actual premise is, "I think [set X/behavior Y/product Z] should be taxed", so generalizing it to "I think more taxes should be paid by somebody" misrepresents the premise.
In this case, the actual premise is, "I think this is something publicly-facing businesses should do", so generalizing it to "I think _every_entity_ should do this", again, misrepresents the premise.
As for the restroom access, and the inevitable consequences, is your issue with the provision of the service, or with being obliged to deal with the consequences for less than fair compensation?
In the case of taxes, the actual premise is, "I think [set X/behavior Y/product Z] should be taxed", so generalizing it to "I think more taxes should be paid by somebody" misrepresents the premise.
In this case, the actual premise is, "I think this is something publicly-facing businesses should do", so generalizing it to "I think _every_entity_ should do this", again, misrepresents the premise.
As for the restroom access, and the inevitable consequences, is your issue with the provision of the service, or with being obliged to deal with the consequences for less than fair compensation?