[vlovich123]

> If you narrow the criteria to things like "disruptive" and "nuisance" then you end up constantly defining and clarifying exactly what these things mean. Rules-lawyer-type people will come in and walk right up to wherever the line was established. The whole "nyaa nyaa, I'm not technically touching you!" type

I feel like you're really strawmanning here. I wasn't trying to lay out the exact parameters of the law. See a sibling response to you:

> To the best of my knowledge - this is the case in big chunk Europe, with a "for no reason" added on the end. You can't kick out someone out of business unless they are actively malicious. And no, working for a company that is suing an owner is not considered malicious.

Believe it or not, but that's the whole point of the judge in the legal system. It's to act as the arbiter of are you acting with accordance of the spirit of the law or are you engaging strictly in trying to get as close to the line as possible. And if you show a pattern of acting in bad faith, you get slapped with extra penalties. The American legal system seems to generally prefer "nyaa nyaa, I'm not technically touching you!" interpretations of the law but in reality this kind of interpretation only makes sense in a ridiculously small (if any) set of circumstances - in most others it's better to just let the judge interpret the evidence, figure out who's acting in bad faith (whether through summary judgement or jury if it's really required), and judge accordingly.

As for the closing hours things, that's again a strawman. The business is free to close whenever as long as it's applying this uniformly (i.e. preventing all new public access, trying to get existing public to exit etc). That has nothing to do with ejecting specific individuals selectively.