Your accusation was vague and your reply here equally unsupportive. You may claim anything you like, but if your claim is unsupported then it is unconvincing.
Likewise, your defense that omitting articles is fine is what's truly "unconvincing". To say, "I took a bus here" is acceptable. To say, "I took the bus here" would also be acceptable. Saying, "I took bus here", however, is definitely not a reasonable way to construct a sentence, despite your ("unsupported") claims otherwise. At best, it's a forgivable mistake that you might encounter from a non-native speaker, but in no way is it standard English. To argue otherwise (again, as you have done here) is bonkers.
* I suppose if we were operating under the rules that you insist exist, this could have been worded as "Taco Shack is not taco"—why is it that you didn't, then?
For all the reasons that I just said. If you dispute that, then any response by me (or anyone else) is already guaranteed to be futile.
> Burger King is not a burger
Gee, it's almost as if I already said that.
> Taco Shack is not a shack
Bizarre claim, and a clear example of the futility involved here.