Kenneth_2003 said:
Sounds to me like they are trying to back-track out of a PR pickle.
No way in frozen he__ are you going to convince me that their 3rd party concessionaire running the BAR (or BARRR) doesn't know the difference between TABC RED and BLUE signage.
Now they're raising an interesting question. They've gone with 51% as opposed to "unlicensed possession" for the bar. So is the bar 51% or not? Since the bar is run by a 3rd party, I suppose they can claim the revenue streams for the two entities are different so the bar would in fact be 51%. Otherwise their booze is as popular and equally (or more) expensive than their coolers.
Edit... If it is indeed a really bad lawyer, they've got equally bad bar managers. The signage really isn't all that difficult to understand. If this was a mom & pop operation opening up their first retail place swith Legalzoom representation I would understand. NO... This is a nationwide, multi-million dollar operation that just pulled off a nice legal victory over their largest competitor, with a bar in a "foodie" and service industry heavy city. That's some SUPER bad level lawyering/management.
If the BARRRR's liquor license has the same address as the Yeti store, the 51% applies to the entire premises.
This is how some of the larger concert venues in the state that are owned by political subdivisions are banning carry. They have a liquor vendor who gets 100% of its sales onsite so the entire venue is posted. The law needs to be fixed. IMO, 51% should only apply to the bar area in a multi use facility. The bar carry prohibition needs to go away entirely.