When is the last time you heard someone ask "is it okay if I come in to go shopping?" at a garage sale. Which *is* held on "purely private, residential property", to use your language.
An 'invite' to enter a premises can be "explicit" (as in the case of you allowing someone in to your apartment to use the phone), or "implicit" (as in the case of an establishment 'open to the public').
Absent _either_ an 'explicit' or 'implicit' invitation on the premises,
*AND* absent 'actual notice' that ones presence is 'not welcome'; it is =NOT= trespassing for a person to "merely" be on the premises.However, =regardless= if you once had an 'explicit' _or_ 'implicit' invitation to be on the premises, when you receive ACTUAL NOTICE that you are no longer welcome -- that said invitation has, in your case, been withdrawn -- *THEN* if you enter (or _remain_ on) the premises, you are trespassing.
Retail establishments -- or any other place for that matter -- that first _tell_ someone "you are not welcome on our property; get out of here now, and DO NOT RETURN", and *if*/*when* that person _does_ return has them arrested for trespassing, *ARE* properly exercising their 'private property' rights. Absolutely no different than a farmer that has somebody arrested for going hunting in his fields w/o permission, and despite the posted 'no trespassing' warnings.
Do they claim that the 'contributions' are tax deductible? If the answer is "no", then they don't have to reveal anything to the public.
OTOH, if they claim the contributions are deductible, that they are a "501 (c) {something}" not-for-profit, then they are required by federal law to release certain financial information to _anyone_ who requests it.
If they are 'hired' by a municipality -- then the municipality _can_ make it a condition of that 'hiring' that they disclose to the town whatever financial information that the town deems necessary. The FD has a 'free choice' -- disclose the info, or don't get the city contract.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your mention of 'bathrooms off limits' reminds me of how difficult it is to find a public restroom in a store in downtown Chicago. _None_ of the CTA stations allow anyone to use the restroom; _none_ of the little shops along State Street downtown permit it either. Even many restaurants do not permit the public to use the restroom. Now, a restaurant _which also sells liquor_ is required by the city code in Chicago to have available restrooms, but places for _food only_ are not. You can easily go five or six blocks in downtown Chicago before you can find either a public restroom or for that matter, a pay phone.Where this becomes worrisome for someone like myself is because since my brain aneurysm, I do not have extremely good control over my bodily functions; at least not perfect control. Years and years ago, CTA had restrooms in all their stations as a courtesy to the public; some of them were not terribly clean; even the ones which demanded a five cent coin to go in and use them, (coin lock on the door) but at least they were there. Then City of Chicago passed yet another ordinance which outlawed the installation/use of 'pay toilets' and CTA's response was to close all the bathrooms entirely. Lisa Hancock, this was another example of the social do-gooder activists I guess: CEPTIA (Committee for the Elimination of Pay Toilets in America) convinced City Council to get rid of them. To hell with those of us who at least could count on having somewhere 'to go' when downtown or in a CTA station. There was also a very large public facility in the basement of City Hall for at least fifty years; one day I went past (several years ago) and it was totally boarded up and permanently out of service. PAT]