Starbucks won't eliminate free public toilets, but it will probably give you the side-eye if you go in with a book

As one of the few public areas where you can use the bathroom for free, Starbucks restrooms are great for everyone: people who have to pee without getting hassled by employees, dudes dating girls in studio apartments with paper-thin walls, and eighth graders, who need a discreet location to roll/smoke their first joint while consulting a manual on how to roll/smoke their first joint (no? I guess it's just me then). Which is why a small part of all of us briefly died today after the New York Post reported that Starbucks would be cutting back on the number of public restrooms. The report cited a company source sniffing, "Starbucks cannot be the public bathroom to this city anymore," and media outlets instantly jumped on the story.

Fortunately for customers' urinary tracts/derelict eighth-graders, a company spokesperson responded to the Post by saying that reports the company plans to get rid of all restrooms are "completely false." But the spokesperson did add that "in rare cases at large stores with two bathrooms, we have converted one of the restrooms for employee use."

Having never visited a Starbucks large enough for two bathrooms, and having been told more than once that a restroom was for employees only, I find this claim dubious. If we care about our bladders as much as we care about our venti pumpkin lattes, the solution is clear: in the event that all restrooms are converted to employees-only bathrooms, we're going to have to rise up and slay the evil boobless mermaid siren once and for all. Or just use the bathroom before we go out for coffee. Either one.