Starbucks is undergoing a "'wee' change," says Josh Kosman at the New York Post. According to a source close to the java giant, Starbucks has decided that it "cannot be the public bathroom in [New York City] anymore" and will restrict restrooms at its 190 Manhattan locations to staff-use only. The problem: So many New Yorkers were wandering in to relieve themselves that employees had to wait in long lines just to take bathroom breaks of their own. Plus, upkeep costs for the heavily-trafficked loos had grown excessive. Though Starbucks is dismissing the Post's report as "not true," many commentators are still flush with fury. Here's some of the best snark:

Say it ain't so
We always thought Starbucks' free bathroom policy was "a pretty genius business strategy," says Dan Amira at New York. "Come for the emergency bowel movements, stay for the pastries!" Now, the end of "the chain's reign as an oasis in the toilet desert of Manhattan" is actually a "terrifying" prospect for New Yorkers.

Occupy the bathroom
Maybe, says The Huffington Post, "the recently-evicted Occupy Wall Street protesters could donate their toilets for public use?"

This is hazardous to your health
"Your next UTI will be sponsored by Starbucks," says Anna North at Jezebel. After all, without a Starbucks to pop into, New Yorkers may have to suppress their bathroom urges for an unhealthy length of time.

New York City's sanitation department can't be pleased, says The Daily Beast. Will reckless public urination "make a comeback?"

Sadly, this makes sense
The bathroom closure follows reports that Starbucks was kicking out "the laptop hobos who occupy tables for hours while nursing a single cup of coffee," says Hamilton Nolan at Gawker. Starbucks is not in "the 'place to come and use the restrooms for free' business," or "the 'you can't afford office space so why not 'rent' our space here for an entire day for the price of a small coffee' business." Starbucks is in the "money money money business."