Ok, two quotes from you, both making the point that a cinema is not there for eating and drinking. Their business is films. They are not there to be making money out of snacks. It is not their purpose of business.
Like I said, if you went on to read the extrapolation of the sentance (immediately after it in the brackets), along with the rest of the post, it would make sense.
You claim that you are "allowed" to eat in a cinema, but it is not what the place is there for. If it is a place for watching films, you have no intrinsic right to eat on their property. Ergo, it is not a place to eat and drink - only a place where the owners have a right to let you, if they want.
(Note, I'm hoping you have made it down this far in the post. Without getting this far, I can well imagine how the posts I have quoted will be used to prove my first paragraph wrong. If only I could explain a detailed point in only one sentance!)
Now I just hope I don't need to explain the contents of the rest of the post where you cut off everything but the last paragraph. Those being the bits explaining why food and drink are a part of a cinema's business. Not that you even answered the paragraph you quoted; you just said it was ridiculous.
Why am I bothering? Calling me ridiculous isn't countering my posts anyway!