So, Stroman's cover story is that he's upset the proprietor wouldn't facilitate prevention of assembly?
Your theory is poppycock. The government wouldn't have been preventing assembly, per se, it would have been closing one venue, at most; and by enlisting the proprietor, there is no violation, period. There wouldn't be "government action."
See, for example, Mall of America seeking a TRO against Black Lives Matter.
” The government wouldn’t have been preventing assembly, per se, it would have been closing one venue, at most...”
Closing one venue in order to accomplish what? Oh yeah, to prevent an assembly.
“... and by enlisting the proprietor, there is no violation, period. There wouldn’t be “government action.”
The proprietor wouldn’t cooperate, so necessarily, in order to stop it, as many posters around here seem to think the cops should have done, would have required government action WITHOUT the proprietor’s consent.