People can have you removed from their private property for any reason, as long as it's a legal reason.
In the case of Rittenhouse starbucks, my understanding is their big problem was the cultural problem of Starbucks' long-time policy of allowing people to freely use the restrooms, sit in their restaurants all day, oftentimes without even requiring any purchase. That may work in a giant low-rent area, but not Rittenhouse, NYC, etc.. So their culture and policies are changing, but they've done an inadequate job of providing notice of the change. So in that case it was a conflict of rights (remove trespassers) v possible reasonable expectations of license based on a course of dealing. Hence, why are you singling me out for removal?
In this case, these were members. Hard for a member to trespass when it's just a minor disagreement with management. They had a conditional license that required them to follow the rules. They broke rules but sound to have had some level of permission from the pro. They were approached (badly)....
With regard to Rittenhouse; when the story first broke the Police Chief was quoted as saying that he was aware of the policy of limiting use of the rest rooms to paying customers, and that a uniformed police officer had previously been denied access to the rest rooms.
That story seems to have disappeared; perhaps the CP misspoke.