That’s absurd. If I run a shop and I require an ID check at the entrance then it doesn’t mean that I am not allowed to shop myself in stores which don’t require ID checks.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be surprised if this defense was particularly robust anyway. It seems you'd just have to argue that there's some slight difference in the situations and that's why I'm doing something that guy shouldn't do. But either way, you're not taking away the correct message from his example.