Thrown out of Vegetarian restaurant

[FoodMan]

It's a very clear case of the woman being wrong.  Parenting issues aside, she was wrong to take chicken into a vegetarian restaurant then ask that it be heated up in a vegetarian kitchen.  Had it been my restaurant, I probably wouldn't have been quite so nice as the owners of Rendezvous, especially considering this woman's behavior.

Would we be having this debate (not that it's much of a debate) if she'd done this in a Kosher restaurant?  No.

Fat Guy did a great job in stating exactly what I was thinking concerning this point. Bringing a jar of food was not wrong, getting mad and abusive if the restaurant did not want to heat it is.

There is a big difference between a kosher restaurant and a vegetarian one in this matter. The first is doing it for religious purposes the second for...social, health, taste.

Another good point is that there was no printed rule saying "DO NOT BRING ANY MEAT CONTAINING ITEMS (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO BABY FOOD) INTO THIS RESTAURANT".

FM

[rendezvous]

"It seems like a pretty harsh punishment to me, especially since it seems like everyone calmed down enough so that she could finish what was on her plate before she left."

To clarify, when she was asked to leave (obviously without being charged for the meals ordered and partially consumed by herself, her companion and the elder child) - she refused, demanding to finish her meal but we declined. She asked that she be allowed to take the food away - we agreed. Then she then said that if we wanted her to leave we should call the police. She then sought support from fellow diners on the next table who had witnessed the whole incident, unfortunately the response was not as she expected and they supported our decision. This was what prompted her to actually vacate the premises.

With respect to anyone who runs a food premises, its never a good thing to ask anyone to leave - especially when you've incurred the food costs and it's affected other diners, its a decision I doubt many would take lightly.

[sherribabee]

I've never seen a vegetarian restaurant that advertises a "meat free environment." Maybe there are some out there, but I don't know of any. It's not the same as the promise of a kosher restaurant, which is that the restaurant will follow an established, codified set of rules and regulations of which most customers are aware. What vegetarian restaurants advertise, implicitly, is that they're going to serve you food that doesn't contain meat. That's all. Everything else about a vegetarian restaurant, you have to learn either by inquiring (Does the restaurant serve dairy at all? How about cheese with rennet? Etc.) or by being told explicitly in printed documents.

I'd agree with this. I've seen countless vegetarian restaurants, but I've yet to see one actually promote itself at meat-free.

My guess is that unless a restaurant promised a meat-free invironment, patrons wouldn't necessarly be offended by someone feeding their baby a product which contains meat.

[claire797]

It's a very clear case of the woman being wrong.  Parenting issues aside, she was wrong to take chicken into a vegetarian restaurant then ask that it be heated up in a vegetarian kitchen.  Had it been my restaurant, I probably wouldn't have been quite so nice as the owners of Rendezvous, especially considering this woman's behavior.

Would we be having this debate (not that it's much of a debate) if she'd done this in a Kosher restaurant?  No.

Fat Guy did a great job in stating exactly what I was thinking concerning this point. Bringing a jar of food was not wrong, getting mad and abusive if the restaurant did not want to heat it is.

There is a big difference between a kosher restaurant and a vegetarian one in this matter. The first is doing it for religious purposes the second for...social, health, taste.

Another good point is that there was no printed rule saying "DO NOT BRING ANY MEAT CONTAINING ITEMS (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO BABY FOOD) INTO THIS RESTAURANT".

FM

I still think she was wrong on both counts. She shouldn't have brought it in and she shouldn't have been abusive to the staff.

Maybe the poor woman was having a bad day, but she still was wrong and there's still grounds for asking her to leave OR discard the chicken.

[bloviatrix]

The thing is, this woman is a former vegetarian.

'It was not as if I had brought in a whole roast chicken and started carving it in front of everyone.' Mrs Graham, who runs a retail business, was a vegetarian herself for 20 years and although now a meateater, remains a fan of vegetarian cuisine.

Therefore, one would think she would be more respectful of the meat-free status of restaurant and sensitive to the feelings of the other diners.

Edited September 22, 2003 by bloviatrix (log)

[rendezvous]

"What vegetarian restaurants advertise, implicitly, is that they're going to serve you food that doesn't contain meat. That's all. Everything else about a vegetarian restaurant, you have to learn either by inquiring (Does the restaurant serve dairy at all? How about cheese with rennet? Etc.) or by being told explicitly in printed documents."

If the rennet is animal derrived the cheese cannot be vegetarian by definition. Cheese in and of itself isn't automatically vegetarian (although many catering establishments don't seem to realise this).

As stated earlier in this thread, we do serve dairy as an option to the meals which are all prepared vegan. This is in the form of cheese, milk for drinks and ice cream (we have seperate specific utensils for dairy). But dairy relates to veganism and not to vegetarianism. Meat and meat derivatives are excluded from both diets by definition and there is most definately a requirement for us to ensure that the meals meet those definitions.

If a customer were to come into contact with meat in our premises we would have to show that we took every reasonable precaution to prevent that because of how we promote our trade.

"The first is doing it for religious purposes the second for...social, health, taste."

Many vegetarians abstain from meat for religious reasons too - and I'm not sure how personal choice is any less valued than ones religious beliefs. In either case there is a realistic and reasonable expectation.

[FoodMan]

Many vegetarians abstain from meat for religious reasons too - and I'm not sure how personal choice is any less valued than ones religious beliefs. In either case there is a realistic and reasonable expectation.

that is true and religious beliefes are certainly not more valued than ones personal choice. What I meant was that by law, a kosher retaurant CANNOT have pork on the premises, but a vegetarian restaurant will still be a vegetarian restaurant if a woamn fed her baby some meat based baby food.

A question for Rendevouz: Would she have been asked to leave if all she did was feed the baby the food and not raise a fuss about it???

FM

[rendezvous]

Again, to clarify - she wasn't asked to leave for the baby food itself - it was for being abusive after our meat free policy was explained.

It comes back to the test of reasonableness - if a member of staff had seen the baby food then the meat free nature of the premises would have been explained to her and she would have been asked that it not be consumed to respect the nature of the restaurant. Asking us to handle the food simply made it 100% certain we would be aware of this.

[Fat Guy]

If the rennet is animal derrived the cheese cannot be vegetarian by definition.

There are many, many definitions of "vegetarian." There are people who eat fish and chicken yet call themselves vegetarians. There are people who will eat meat-based stocks but not actual pieces of meat, and they call themselves vegetarian. I know plenty of self-proclaimed vegetarians who have no problem eating cheese made with rennet. As far as I know, there is no official, widely recognized worldwide body saying "vegetarian means X" the way there are organizations like the Orthodox Union out there actually defining and codifying exactly what it means to be kosher. As a result, each vegetarian establishment, and each vegetarian, is on its own when it comes to defining where the line will get drawn. And I think an establishment can draw that line anywhere it wants. But one should not assume that every customer walking through the door implicitly understands -- or, rather, is able to guess -- where that particular establishment draws the line.

religious beliefs are certainly not more valued than ones personal choice

Some people don't necessarily see religions as matters of choice. That's one of a few reasons why, in the laws of most nations, religious beliefs are accorded a higher status than personal choices. Another reason is that there has been a long history of people being killed for religious beliefs, whereas people aren't typically persecuted and executed for their food preferences. We'd wander too far off topic if we got into this, but let me just state for the record that plenty of reasonable people would disagree with the leveling of religious beliefs to rank the same as all other personal choices.

[Kim WB]

I suspect the children who never ate jarred babyfoods are the same ones that slept through the night at 3 months, never misbehaved at a restaurant, disdain McD's happy meals, and never played a video game!

Anyway, the extent in which Rendevous needs to explain the inticacies of vegetarianism, and his restaurants interpretation of such, explains part of the problem. Even to a group of "know more than most" food people, it's unclear to many. I agree with some of the other posters who think that the demonification of the mother is a bit harsh...half the time, you grab a jar of food off the shelf and don't know what you grabbed..stick it in the baby bag in case you need it. I have requested cups of hot water or to have baby food microwaved. ( hello! the jars are microwaveable, and you stir it up and taste it before you give it to the kid) You stick the jar into the cup, stir it while heats, and feed the baby...with the teeny rubber coated spoon you brought along.

While I respect a restaurant owner's right to control "his four walls", I think that it would have been simple to accomodate this request, and I suspect that if it was a jar of turnips, he would have. If anyone could convince me that her feeding the baby would compromise the integrity of the other consumers, I guess I could see it. I might be a little put off, too, if I couldn't get a cup of hot water to warm the food. I would not have gotten rude, and I would have left if requested to do so, but I wolld have been sure to never return to this non-service oriented restaurant.

I Interpret a Vegetarian restaurant as one that does not serve meat products, period. I don't think of it as a place where meat is NOT allowed, or meat eaters are not serviced at the same level of vegetarians..because I reiterate, I suspect that if it was carrots she would have gotten her cup of hot water.

[Suvir Saran]

I've never seen a vegetarian restaurant that advertises a "meat free environment." Maybe there are some out there, but I don't know of any. It's not the same as the promise of a kosher restaurant, which is that the restaurant will follow an established, codified set of rules and regulations of which most customers are aware. What vegetarian restaurants advertise, implicitly, is that they're going to serve you food that doesn't contain meat. That's all. Everything else about a vegetarian restaurant, you have to learn either by inquiring (Does the restaurant serve dairy at all? How about cheese with rennet? Etc.) or by being told explicitly in printed documents.

If you are Hindu, from India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Africa, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, US, Singapore, Europe or most any other part of the world, you take it for granted that rules are rules. If I enter a vegetarian Indian restaurant, like a Kosher observer does a Kosher restaurant, I do not need to ask for rules, I need to see no advertisement and I need to have no worries. I know I am walking into comfortable territory, where I need to have no doubts in my mind. I am here to enjoy a meal and the company of family and friends. I forget the desire to enquire or learn, I fall into a comfort zone not afforded me in restaurants that are Mixed (meat and veggies from whatever cuisine they choose), Kosher, Vegan or Vegetarian restaurants owned by people of cultures other than Indian. They are from my culture and I have confidence in knowing that. Since these restaurants are most often managed, owned or both by others like me, I have confidence and comfort in knowing so. For a change, I only eat, and leave fear, questioning and any worries to the side.

If I am a Jain, Saraswat Brahman, Radha Soami (as is my family and I), then we would already have inquired before stepping into the Indian vegetarian restaurants that otherwise afford the basic vegetarians of India all promise they need.

The promise of these restaurants, even without any "meat free" advertisement, is the same promise as that of a Kosher restaurant. It promises all that come to it, being vegetarian Indians (Hindus for the most part), a meat free environment and meat free food.

If you are vegan, and not part of the Hindu vegetarian traditions, you should worry. To vegans, an Indian restaurants "unwritten but promised rules" do not apply.

Most Hindus assume, and I know most all Hindu vegetarian restaurant owners I have chatted with have bought cheese without rennet when they have cheese on their menu. I have been looked at funny for even asking such a question. As if I did not trust the restaurant and its staff. They will use gelatin of a certain type. They would never have fish and eggs. To an Indian vegetarian, in an Indian vegetarian restaurant, there is no need to question the promise of a vegetarian experience. It is a given and understood by all.

As I travel across countries and cities, I come across a few but enough numbers of these Hindu Vegetarian restaurants that deliver exactly what I feel I have been promised by assuming that a restaurant is Indian and vegetarian.

When I travel with friends that are Jain or from a certain part of Western UP where some groups of non-Brahmins also do not eat onions and other ground vegetables, I will make sure that the restaurant can accommodate our unique dietary needs. And I also ensure that my dining companion(s) will be comfortable eating in a restaurant that does cook with some of these items not allowed to them.

I have to learn most nothing about vegetarian restaurants of the Indian diaspora before going to them. Nor do those that go into them from our communities. We walk into them full of confidence about an experience that could be a great one (if the food is tasty and the service at least decent and attentive), eat and go our way. We know we have been promised a vegetarian meal, under the codes of the larger vegetarian practice of Hindu India. We take it for granted, like anyone entering a Kosher restaurant, that once inside and dining, we are in safe territory.

[Suvir Saran]

"What vegetarian restaurants advertise, implicitly, is that they're going to serve you food that doesn't contain meat. That's all. Everything else about a vegetarian restaurant, you have to learn either by inquiring (Does the restaurant serve dairy at all? How about cheese with rennet? Etc.) or by being told explicitly in printed documents."

"The first is doing it for religious purposes the second for...social, health, taste."

Many vegetarians abstain from meat for religious reasons too - and I'm not sure how personal choice is any less valued than ones religious beliefs.  In either case there is a realistic and reasonable expectation.

Very well said.

[Schneier]

I assume a vegatarian restaurant is a meat-free environment. Kitchen staff is not allowed to cook burgers for themselves to eat in the break room, for example. I don't think it's advertised, but I think it's a given.

Bruce

[Suvir Saran]

I Interpret a Vegetarian restaurant as one that does not serve meat products, period. I don't think of it as a place where meat is NOT allowed, or meat eaters are not serviced at the same level of vegetarians..because I reiterate, I suspect that if it was carrots she would have gotten her cup of hot water.

Kim, as usual, I find myself agreeing with most all you say.

As for the "I don't think of it as a place where meat is NOT allowed", I disagree. I never go into a vegetarian restaurant thinking meat will be allowed. I always fear that they do have fish or eggs on their menu, but that is the extent to which I worry. I am vegetarian, so have had to live with this all my life.

As for your carrot analogy, I have to agree with you once again.

[Suvir Saran]

I assume a vegatarian restaurant is a meat-free environment.  Kitchen staff is not allowed to cook burgers for themselves to eat in the break room, for example.  I don't think it's advertised, but I think it's a given.

Bruce

Exactly what I take as a given.

But some nations (and I am told more than one assumes, exist of this kind) do not give a persons own choice as much respect as that of ones religion. So who knows.... unless one were to eat in a religiously identified restaurant in these nations, one can never assume anything or take anything for granted.

In India, and most all Indian restaurants I eat in, I have nothing to worry about... even though they do not say they are Jain, Brahmin, Radha Soami or whatever, it is safe and indeed fool proof to go and eat without fear that you are eating in a place where any meat would be permitted.

Whilst I have cooked and worked in restaurants that serve meat, if I have had vegetarian clients who are coming into them for they know me and feel comfortable eating in a meat serving restaurant connected with me, I take it upon myself to ensure I bring my own pots and pans, let no meat touch these peoples foods and I will ask if they want to be served in dishes that are from my home instead of the restaurant. But these people, are knowingly entering a restaurant that serves meat, and have enquired if their dietary needs can be met. if they went into an Indian vegetarian restaurant, or even a non-Indian one in America, they would assume it would be all vegetarian, until in some cases, they will be shocked to find fish on the menu, as I used to be when I first came to the US.

Many vegetarians in India also make exceptions and have fish, meat or eggs. But when dining in an Indian vegetarian restaurant, one has to have no fear about having meat or fish being present anywhere. That will never happen. Unless advertised otherwise.

[tanabutler]

There are many, many definitions of "vegetarian." There are people who eat fish and chicken yet call themselves vegetarians. There are people who will eat meat-based stocks but not actual pieces of meat, and they call themselves vegetarian. I know plenty of self-proclaimed vegetarians who have no problem eating cheese made with rennet.

Yes, California is full of people who say, "I'm a vegetarian. I only eat chicken and fish." My term for those people is "nitwits."

If it had a face, it's not a vegetable. If it had a mother, it's not a vegetable. (Well, then we get into "are eggs meat?" and that whole thing.)

But shrimp? Chicken? Stop kidding yourselves. You eat meat.

This reminds me of the time I took my 18-month-old baby girl to Texas (where the state flower, as you all know, is a cow). They knew she did not eat meat. She was sitting on a relative's lap, and he was starting to shovel chicken soup into her mouth.

"Shad! She doesn't eat meat!"

He looked up in surprise. "This isn't meat. It's chicken!"

Good Lord. So yes, perceptions vary, but dead meat is dead meat. I sometimes think my eyes will roll right out of my head when I hear those chicken/fish vegetarians. "Hey, you, get off your high horse...and eat it!" (Kidding. I'm kidding. I know horses aren't plants.)

(Glad to see Suvir weighed in on this. He's a vegetarian with some natural flexibility and no apparent dogma.)

[rendezvous]

This is the definition of vegetarian from the UK Vegetarian Society with whom we are approved (www.vegsoc.org):

"A vegetarian does not eat any meat, poultry, game, fish, shellfish or crustacea, or slaughter by-products such as gelatine or animal fats. "

True, many people call themselves vegetarian who eat fish or poultry, but just because someone self labels doesn't make it accurate and neither does it remove the responsiblity of those using the term to attract trade from ensuring the food matches the description (regardless of whether the diner understands what the term means or not).

[Fat Guy]

If I enter a vegetarian Indian restaurant, like a Kosher observer does a Kosher restaurant, I do not need to ask for  rules

Absolutely correct, because the rules are understood by Indian vegetarian restaurants and their customers the world over. They are understood because they're religious and traditional rules either from Hinduism or from other religions that have codified their rules of vegetarianism, and because they are uniformly applied everywhere these restaurants exist. I assume the same would be true of Halal restaurants as well.

But there exists no similar code for vegetarian restaurants that exist outside of a given set of religious/cultural/traditional restrictions. There's a whole lot of room for interpretation -- fish, dairy, and products that are derived from animals but aren't meat-like (gelatin, rennet, vitamins and minerals used to fortify ingredients) may or may not appear -- so unless the owner of such a restaurant prints explicit rules there's little grounds for being shocked when someone wants to bring a jar of meat-based baby food into the dining room, or even when that person askes to have it heated in the microwave.

[sherribabee]

There are many, many definitions of "vegetarian." There are people who eat fish and chicken yet call themselves vegetarians. There are people who will eat meat-based stocks but not actual pieces of meat, and they call themselves vegetarian. I know plenty of self-proclaimed vegetarians who have no problem eating cheese made with rennet.

Yes, California is full of people who say, "I'm a vegetarian. I only eat chicken and fish." My term for those people is "nitwits."

If it had a face, it's not a vegetable. If it had a mother, it's not a vegetable. (Well, then we get into "are eggs meat?" and that whole thing.)

But shrimp? Chicken? Stop kidding yourselves. You eat meat.

This reminds me of the time I took my 18-month-old baby girl to Texas (where the state flower, as you all know, is a cow). They knew she did not eat meat. She was sitting on a relative's lap, and he was starting to shovel chicken soup into her mouth.

"Shad! She doesn't eat meat!"

He looked up in surprise. "This isn't meat. It's chicken!"

Good Lord. So yes, perceptions vary, but dead meat is dead meat. I sometimes think my eyes will roll right out of my head when I hear those chicken/fish vegetarians. "Hey, you, get off your high horse...and eat it!" (Kidding. I'm kidding. I know horses aren't plants.)

(Glad to see Suvir weighed in on this. He's a vegetarian with some natural flexibility and no apparent dogma.)

I tend to giggle when someone tells me they're a vegetarian, and they eat fish or whatever. Morons.

[Fat Guy]

just because someone self labels doesn't make it accurate

Just because the UK Vegetarian Society presents a definition doesn't make it accurate either. Nor does it mean anybody has ever heard of the UK Vegetarian Society, nor does it mean anybody should be presumed to be familiar with that organization's rules. For example, like it or not, the term "pesce-vegetarian" is well accepted by millions of people around the world, not just by a few idiosyncratic self-labelers.

[Fat Guy]

I tend to giggle when someone tells me they're a vegetarian, and they eat fish or whatever.  Morons.

I bet there are pesce-vegetarians out there who are smarter than anyone on eGullet. I bet there are pesce-vegetarians who have won the Nobel Prize, saved millions of lives, invented groundbreaking new technologies, and maintained perfect grade point averages at Harvard. Maybe we're the morons.

[Fat Guy]

I'd recommend that everybody who hasn't already done so take a look at Rochelle Reid Meyers's excellent "What is vegetarianism?" discussion in her eGullet Culinary Institute lecture "Vegetarian Cooking for Everyone".

[rendezvous]

"But there exists no similar code for vegetarian restaurants that exist outside of a given set of religious/cultural/traditional restrictions. There's a whole lot of room for interpretation -- fish, dairy, and products that are derived from animals but aren't meat-like (gelatin, rennet, vitamins and minerals used to fortify ingredients) may or may not appear -- so unless the owner of such a restaurant prints explicit rules there's little grounds for being shocked when someone wants to bring a jar of meat-based baby food into the dining room, or even when that person askes to have it heated in the microwave."

When people talk in general conversation then there is no requirement for accuracy - but when you label something as vegetarian you do have a duty of care to be accurate, something that trading standards (a governmental body) can and do police. For example, a large supermarket here at christmas time was selling a christmas cake marked as vegetarian but which contained the red coloring cochineal (made from insects). They had to withdraw that item from their stores and destroy it.

[TrishCT]

Rendezvous,

In hindsight, do you wish you just gave the customer a cup of hot water...?

[rendezvous]

just because someone self labels doesn't make it accurate

Just because the UK Vegetarian Society presents a definition doesn't make it accurate either. Nor does it mean anybody has ever heard of the UK Vegetarian Society, nor does it mean anybody should be presumed to be familiar with that organization's rules. For example, like it or not, the term "pesce-vegetarian" is well accepted by millions of people around the world, not just by a few idiosyncratic self-labelers.

Then surely the answer is to take it to a level that covers all the others - if in doubt make sure you cover the most bases. If there is doubt about fish and poultry then don't include it - thereby removing the problem.