Legal Nonsense transposed upon normal interactions

"Imagine going to a store and you go to the checkout counter with a box of raisins marked $2.99.  The cashier tells you the raisins are $150 plus administrative costs for his having to ring you up.  You tell him the raisins are marked $2.99 and that's all you're going to pay for them, and only an imbecile would pay $150 for a little box of raisins.  The cashier gets angry and says, 'It's my register, you're in my line, it's my store and you are going to pay $150!'  You tell him that's not how you understand it; the box is clearly marked $2.99.  He says that's 'your interpretation,' it costs what he says it costs and if you don't like it, hire another grocer to explain it to you.  You refuse, give the raisins back and start leaving so you can buy raisins from a normal person.  The cashier then snaps at you that you're now in contempt of store and you have to pay not only the $150 to be released from the store, but you also must pay the costs of 'keeping you there.'  If you don't like it, you can 'appeal' it to the store's manager after you've paid this new bill.  If you somehow manage to get away from this nutcase, he might then 'issue a warrant' and give it to store 'security' who would then be 'authorized' to use deadly force to 'arrest' you and bring you back to 'his store.'  And if you that's not bad enough, the cashier has no personal liability for his actions because cashiers must be free and independent.  Would anyone accept such behavior from a cashier?  If not, then why do they accept it from a pack of lawyers?  What separates cashiers from lawyers; why are lawyers able to foist this madness on others while cashiers can not?  Cashiers do not provide their services at the barrel of a gun."  ~ Marc Stevens