Thrown out of Vegetarian restaurant

[ronnie_suburban]

Vegetarianism and/or heating aside, is it really okay for a customer to bring outside food into (another) restaurant?  If I were the restaurant owner in question, I think I'd be miffed by it.  Of course, I can't say for sure that I'd forbid it either.

Ronnie, you'd be miffed if someone brought in baby food for their baby??? Ooops I see Fat Guy beat me to that query....

LOL! No...I'm changing issues mid-stream...babies and baby food would both be fine in my restaurant.

=R=

[rendezvous]

"It just seems that giving this customer a cup of hot water so she could feed her hungry baby.... Although not something desirable, and not an act the restaurant condones.... Could have been extended in this one instance, as an exception."

If the baby was truly hungry, would the mother have wanted to finish her own meal (or wait for the police) before leaving?

Is it reasonable to compromise the whole reason that the restaurant exists for someone who who was unable to be civil?

I can't see the logic for excepting something you don't condone. The only "win" would have been to not get targetted by the media. If you can't take the heat for supporting what you stand for then its time to pack in, close the doors and go home.

[Suvir Saran]

I think precisely because we're food people that we're getting all caught up in the minutia of what is "actually" vegetarian. "Meat-free" shouldn't need to be spelled out because it's implied in the word "vegetarian" as it is commonly understood.

For most people, if you take them to a vegetarian restaurant, they will assume it will be meatless. No cows, no chicken, no floppy fish. No beef stock, no chicken stock, no fish stock.

If you take them to a vegan restaurant, then we eliminate the eggs, cheese, etc.

The whole reason you have the lacto, ovo, etc. terminology is because people have felt the need to qualify what is a very basic concept.

I'm not going to argue whether or not the mother is correct or not, but I do think it's a little facetious to say anyone walking into a vegetarian restaurant wouldn't understand what they were getting into without a long laundry-list definition.

Excellent post Hest. You have said eloquently all that ought to be said and understood.

I agree the minutiae are indeed ours alone and tedious as many such discussions can become. Especially when we rely on words alone. Words can both take us to heights we could never achieve any other way, and words can also be the greatest enemy of things simple and honest.

Thanks for a great post. Erudite, precise and very succinct.

[Suvir Saran]

These are all lifestyle choices we're talking about here.  If you decide that keeping kosher is a necessary part of your religious beliefs, and you go to a kosher restaurant, it seems to me a perfectly reasonable expectation that the other patrons won't be asking the restaurant to heat up their pig-on-a-stick baby food (mmm, pig on a stick).

Minor point here... as I believe FG pointed out earlier, many people believe that their religion, and whatever dietary guidelines may go along with it, are not a matter of choice. Whatever one may think about religion, this makes, say, keeping kosher fundamentally different from being a non-religion-based vegetarian.

This little digression has no bearing on your good point about the inherrent rudeness of bringing meat into a vegetarian restaurant (and especially expecting to be able to eat it).

Minor point here..... I come from a country where many hundreds of millions are vegetarian for religious reasons. Yet, there are no rules that one needs to worry about in cooking at a vegetarian restaurant. Our religion has been largely a secular one. Also not written for the most part. And yet having some of the riches religious text any culture can call their own. The secular and religious vegetarians of India, teeming millions, can dine together and without fear that either one will be compromised. No labels are necessary at doors to these vegetarian restaurants. They say they are vegetarian, and it is understood that most all vegetarians can eat there. If there is any added baggage to the word vegetarian (example Kosher, Jain, Saraswat, Kashmiri, Bengali, Amrit Chakha etc... They will say so in their name or their written or advertised materials. For the most part, a rather large majority, has no reason to say anything more. Vegetarian means food that is made without any meat, fish or poultry. Dairy is eaten by most all vegetarians in India. Exceptions exist and there are other restaurants catering to those that need them. And the label says that in addition to the word vegetarian) it is made abundantly clear. It is not a guessing game. It luckily has not been made into a war between the religious and non-religious types. Secular vegetarianism in India is treated with the same respect as vegetarianism of any particular religion or sect of India.

We have faith in our fellow humans, and that faith makes us feel comfortable knowing that the fellow diner, the chef or the line chefs and all restaurant employees, have done nothing to compromise our meatless meal.

But in the same country, there are millions like me that are vegetarian by choice and not by religious reasons. We are afforded the same privileges and same respect by our fellow humans (religious or not) and from the restaurants we go to as Vegetarians. Be they religiously vegetarian or simply vegetarian restaurants. Not one of us has to worry that because we are eating at a secular vegetarian restaurant, we ought to worry that meat would come into our food or restaurant environs. It is safe to assume that a Moslem in India dining in a Indian restaurant that is secular, can dine without fear that Pork is bought into the kitchen, a Hindu can dine there without any fear of beef and a Jew without fear of pork and so on and so forth. Secular restaurants do exist in many cultures and countries and cities. They give the same respect to people choices as those afforded to the religious in their religion bound restaurants. It is one and the same thing...... It is all about tradition, belief and custom. One could be a vegetarian and still not have any choice about not eating meat. I do NOT eat meat in my home. NEVER. Not even when I cook it. I do NOT eat meat when cooking in restaurants. I only taste a small amount of meat when traveling and working on a story. I am deeply secular and deeply cultural and deeply social. And I know more about Hinduism than most anyone my age or decades senior. I grew up with a Brahmin priest and a Moslem Mullah teaching me about Hinduism and Islam. I was raised with traditions of both. My grandma a deeply religious person, was unusually religious and fundamentally Secular. Hence, even as a Hindu, to make us (her grandchildren) truly secular, she requested a Moslem friend of the family to arrange for the local Mullah (priest from the local Mosque) to give us Islamic study lessons. We understood religion and secular living and the traditions of food. We dined around the globe. Never worried to be offended by those we respected and those that like us, were secular and caring of others beyond the limitation of religion, class or creed alone. When I dine in a vegetarian restaurant, I assume for the most part that is really is Meatless. When I dine in an American (new age) or a Japanese vegetarian restaurant, I am trepidatious at best. For I know sea food can often be cooked in these kitchens. I have learned to not let that bother me.

But in most all other countries I travel to, when I enter a vegetarian restaurant, run by Thai, Malaysians, Hindus, Indonesians, Singaporeans, Indians, Moroccans, Syrians, Algerians or Lebanese, I am confident that I am entering a meat free space. I have no fear. And I have never been let down.

Non religion based vegetarian restaurants are places that give peace of mind to non-religious vegetarians the world over about being in meat free environs. Do they do the same today in the US? Perhaps not as clearly as they do in other parts of the world. And that really could be a tragedy more so than anything else. For in this land today, a wonderful country built upon the ideals of secularism, religion alone is afforded respect and blind faith. Fait in humanity and human respect for each other is at a very low ebb. Not because we do not have it in us to have faith in another without needing the inclusion of religion to have faith, but because religion and politics have been married so drastically that nothing seems to be innocent anymore. Only religion can be called pure here. All else is open to debate. There is reason to debate religion. The oldest of religions have only enriched themselves as they debated and grew from where they first began. Closing doors only to religion is scary. Not respecting that which can be just as pure as religion without having its organization is a folly.

Religion and personal beliefs not guided by organized religion are one and the same. To some religion gives the pillar of strength necessary to live and learn and share, to another, a personal journey lived according to ones own thought process is just as precious and pure and honest. They each can live and be given equal respect.

So, whilst I do not keep Kosher, neither am I a Jain who cannot eat root vegetables, or a Misra Brahmin that cannot eat any fish, meat or poultry, I still am a human with devout belief that I am a vegetarian. I also have great confidence in my belief of being vegetarian. And I never feel any lesser than an Kosher Observing Jew, Vegetarian Jain or Hindu. In my world, where I live with friends, and in my country, I can still go to restaurants and never feel that because I do not have the label of religion attached to my belief, or because the secular vegetarian restaurants I dine in, my belief is taken any less seriously. Even in restaurants serving vegetarian Indian food in NYC, Jains, Sikhs, Brahmans, Moslems or anyone who lives in NYC and wants vegetarian Indian food, can find a safe place for a meatless dining experience without any religious baggage. It is wonderful when I take friends who are non-Indian to these restaurants and we find vegetarians from around the globe eating in these restaurants.. most are secular folk like many of us.... and some religious of many different orders.

In many a part of the world, my secular vegetarian beliefs and needs related to food are just as highly regarded and respected as those of observant religious diners in restaurants that cater to their religious dietary needs.

[Suvir Saran]

I would not want to judge someone's motivations for being a vegetarian. Even atheists can be completely moral, and who is to say that their integrity is any less important than an external influence like a religious decree?

"Lifestyle"? Not always. A deep commitment is a deep commitment, and it's no one else's place to judge or dismiss that.

(The kosher restaurant scenario? I wouldn't know much about what is and is not permitted, were I to visit one—I don't even know if I'm a shiksa or a goy). I would welcome an education in the event I went to a kosher establishment, and would welcome compassion and understanding even more.)

Very nicely said.

[tanabutler]

Suvir, I always learn so much from your multi-cultural upbringing. I am in awe of the opportunities you've had, culturally and educationally, to experience so much. There is always so much richness in your thought, and most especially in your desire to show the commonality in our differences.

That is perhaps the most important thing in the world, to me, these days. To find a way to embrace diversity.

For some reason, a funny thing just popped into my head. My mother worked in the Seventies for a wonderful man in Atlanta named Sidney Glazer. He owned Sidney's Just South, a funky and very popular restaurant in a little house on Roswell Road. Sidney and his older sister, Molly, were New Yorkers. So New Yawk. I loved these people.

Mama came home one night and tried to describe an "argument" (not really) between Molly and Sidney. She didn't want him serving pork. She cited their religious upbringing. Sidney replied, "Molly. It's 1975. Don't you think the Good Lord knows we have a health department?"

So, no, Sidney didn't keep kosher.

And as they say, it takes all kinds. Were I one of the strict kinds, I would certainly appreciate someone looking out for my interests. Maybe that's why vegans have adopted such a strongline position. (I think I just had an little enlightenment there. I'm not one of the strict kinds, and I can understand the insistence, although not the dourness, where I couldn't before.)

I guess what I am learning here is that the word "vegetarian" has a lot of play in the dial. If I were the one designing the panel, I would definitely make the most generous definition "ovo-lacto." Shrimp and chicken just don't cut it.

Thanks again, Suvir. (I confess I don't know what secular religion means. Does it mean honoring your faith while living in a world of diverse people and diets?)

[WHT]

is it really okay for a customer to bring outside food into (another) restaurant?

Baby food for a baby? Yes, it is okay to do that. What possible reason could there be to oppose that?

I would take it one step further. Why didn’t the parents hire a sitter? In my opinion children in general do not belong in restaurants. If they can have smoke free and Cell phone free restaurants…

To many times parents bring children to places where they become a disruption. I blame the parents and not the child. They aren’t exercising good judgment or control of the situation. Especially older toddlers that are allowed to run around and be disruptive. Management is often too hesitant to interject into these situations. So worried about how the parents will react rather than the majority of there other clients.

The problem in this case seems to be a number of factors. We are not given enough information to truly make any real judgment. The article seems to have a bit of a slant to it making the owner look bad. Too many people feel that they have the right to dictate terms in another’s business; this leads to situations like this.

I feel no pity for this woman and the assumption she made. I guess the old saw about assume is relevant here. The restaurant is under no obligation to allow outside food or utensils to be used. That should be the main point of this whole thing. Not what type of joint it is or any other factor.

[Suvir Saran]

Thanks again, Suvir. (I confess I don't know what secular religion means. Does it mean honoring your faith while living in a world of diverse people and diets?)

I wish I could accept your thanks without giving you and all on eGullet my own. Seriously, we on eGullet, are rich for we bring such diverse thought and background into one site. We are enriched grossly by many of one or two communities or nations or religions, but that is also true for most all things in the world. There are always majorities and minorities, that is the reality of life. Majorities can always reduce minority thought to nothing more than a joke or stupid notion. There is never a reason to argue with the majority, for it is meaningless really, but yet, if a minority does not speak, it is a minority that is not worthy of its own existence. A minority that speaks but is not open to others even more minor then them, is even more repugnant than the majority that bullies it. You get my point I am sure... I was even in India, a minority, even though I really did belong to a majority religion.

I am Radha Soami by family association. And even amongst Radha Soamis (our religious sect, community or denomination or whatever you want to call it) we belonged to yet a minor minority, Soami Bagh Radha Soamis. Our texts had the most beautiful offerings from many a religion. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Islam, and Zoroastrianism at the very least. How could I forget, Judeo-Christian verses made their way into our texts as well. God was something that could not be called by any one name. If a God existed, they were without face and form, only a being that gave us something greater to ponder over. And part of this community was a code that asked its followers to refrain from the dogma that came from following the other organized religions of the world. Radha Soamis took Hinduism back to its secular roots where religion became one with nature and elements. Prayer was not about self-bashing or hatred, but the celebration of the human form as we know it and the opportunity to reach greater levels in ones actions of all sorts. Our vocations, our hobbies and our musings were all treated as opportunities for us to find a perfection even this abstract God people speak of would enjoy. But more importantly, it was our mind and hearts we needed to be in peace with, and to that end, each of our actions was meant to be one we would be in peace with for posterity.

Hinduism forbids conversion. It is the greatest of all sins. Even the most fanatic Hindu cannot gain any points with their belief and Gods by proselytizing. It is the greatest of all sins they can commit. Hinduism is only a way of life. It is unique in that and also that it has no one book or two or even three that are biblical in truth. There are no one set of codes that are more prominent and supreme than others. In fact, Hindus pray singing verses of the Bhagvad Gita (a book considered "weightier" than the Bible by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, an Indian who was greatly non-violent, believed to be a rare secular being in a time when hate was easy to accept, and a man killed by people of his own religion for they found his love of people of another race mind boggling, and also a man who studied Judeo-Christian beliefs with sincere curiosity and what many thought was a desire of conversion) which is only a small chapter of an epic most Indians consider an old story tale, that only happens to also be the largest epic ever written anywhere, a book called the Mahabharata. So, you can see, even the book we consider as holy as Christians consider the bible, is only a chapter from a much larger book that we Hindus also really do know as being not much more than a fable.

Hindus do have "sam" a collection of texts that one studies if one wants to understand the way of life of older days Hindus. But there is no verse telling Hindus that they can only achieve religious perfection by studying these texts. What these texts (including the Vedas and Puranas that have given the world algebra, Ayurveda, yoga and meditation techniques) do give Hindus is a look back into time, to understand how our forefathers thousands of years ago lived. How they enriched their lives. What their worries were. How they braved calamities. What rocked their peaceful existence. How they medicated their illnesses, what they ate and why and when. How they cooked some of these grains and herbs and spices that they first found and then cultivated and then used in ways more than one.

Driving with the son of a 94 year old Yoga teacher who has lived in NYC for the last couple of decades, I was given a brief but very beautiful insight into the world of a Hindu who is at once religious and secular. Religious because they call themselves a proud Hindu, secular because they consider every religion equal and God a universal and all forgiving and omni-present and multi-faceted, and many named entity. Musa, Allah, Isa, Ram, Buddha, Krishna et. al. are just one of this Gods many names. This God needs no one way of prayer from us all that inhabit this globe. This God finds joy in our plurality of looks, customs and thoughts. This God hardly cares if one of us speaks one language, prays differently, in another tradition or manner, eat in ways different from that of another of his subjects in another part of the world,or simply is uniquely different. This God, the 94 year old Yoga teacher from India, who has lived in NYC for the last two decades or more, respects teaches him and all of us that also identify ourselves as secular Hindus to live and let live. Our religion is not found in temples. This old man, like my own grandmothers (both of whom I lost this year) and my grandfather who lives in San Francisco teaches the importance of doing good, sharing all one has, forgiving others and opening ones heart and the misery one inflicts on oneself and ones own with hate, retribution and our silly need to have other conform to our selfishly laid out rules and standards. This old man, like my own elders tells the joke about only crooks finding time to really go to temples. He says exactly what my own grandparents would tell us: "an honest, kind and caring human being, has hardly anytime in the day to take care of all the many chores that will bring their family and friends and themselves happiness, to find time to pray and conform to rules and regulations laid out by other mortals in the name of God". That is the core of our way of life, that some call religion, but our own people understand as a private and individual walk in the path of life with a God that lives in each of us and tries to come out with each word we speak, each word we write and each morsel we cook, share and taste.

And so in ending, yes, to me, and a majority of my minority members, religion is just as much a figment of our imaginations as hate and love. Honoring one means honoring the other. If we find honor and respect for religion, we are told to honor and respect the beliefs and faiths of all that we meet no matter how different their ways are from our own.

And yes, to the myriad religions and sects and communities of India, respect for diet is very critical. There is a saying in India which makes clear that each of us is nothing more than a loose make up of what we eat and the earth we walk on. Thus what we eat, with what respect and honor we treat our foods, and how we find faith in our foods and our environment and the soil, is a critical aspect in the ultimate good life we want to find and live on this earth.

[Suvir Saran]

Moreover, while I know plenty of people who keep kosher (and I assume this is the case for many Hindus and Moslems as well) who refuse to set foot in any restaurant that isn't kosher, and who refuse to have so much as a bite of food in any home that isn't strictly kosher (or insert the relevant religious doctrine here), I don't know a single vegetarian who won't eat vegetarian food in a regular restaurant provided that restaurant demonstrates some willingness to accommodate. The whole idea that, when a forbidden item enters the premises or touches a utensil, it somehow desecrates the whole operation is a religious way of thinking. I'm not sure what objection a non-religious vegetarian would have to eating vegetables cooked in a pan that has been thoroughly cleaned, even if that pan was once used to cook meat.

I always wonder what it would take to have TRAVEL become a necessary class for all students.

My ex always said that someday, they would have made enough money to have a trust that would send kids from America to travel across the globe and live alongside people of other cultures and beliefs.

Travel teaches far more intimately and greatly than books, web sites and familiarization trips to nations. I have enjoyed and been on the receiving end of many a press junket across nations. Whilst I have enjoyed observing the affluence afforded to the press by the tourism ministries and their PR people, I have never really been influenced by the heart of the masses of these nations. The only time I come back with a real feeling of the pulse of a people is after living with the masses at all levels possible. The very rich, the very poor and the lower, upper and the mid-level middle class of a nation, city or community. In doing so, I spend a lot of time chatting and chalking up experiences that not always make for press worthy stories, but do leave me with lasting impressions of how common humanity is even across divides and barriers posed by politics, language, race and religion.

Vegetarians across the globe, a very large number, even if we only consider the hundreds of millions that come from the Indian Diaspora, will not eat at a vegetarian restaurant if the same kitchen were cooking meat or fish or poultry. Even the least religious vegetarian amongst them would find it offensive to have to eat in such a restaurant and from such a kitchen. Even I, will eat a meal at such a restaurant, but never enjoy my meal. I have eaten in restaurants of many kinds, I have only enjoyed vegetarian meals in a very few settings in America. I have actually enjoyed a vegetarian meal in a restaurant that served meat, but I knew I had to block off the thoughts about my food being cooked alongside meat and fish and poultry, maybe with stock that is not acceptable to my belief system, and then, for a brief moment, I was able to enjoy that meal for that one moment and then leave it in my memory to reflect on for later times. Would I go there to enjoy a vegetarian meal? NEVER. Would I respect that chef who made me an amazing vegetarian meal within his kitchen? YES.

As a vegetarian, I would never eat in a restaurant that serves meat if I could find a decent restaurant that served food I enjoyed which happened to be a vegetarian restaurant as well. But since in my current country of choice, my options are limited, unless I eat Indian or Vegan (which I am not much a fan of), I have accepted this and I eat to give company to friends and family that eat meat, fish or poultry, and I find myself coming home or going to those of others that cook like me and eat like me to give my body sustenance. As a human being who is greatly a social animal, I find myself just perfectly happy to eat a few tablespoons of food, at a very slow pace, tell tales and be happy as I find myself watching my friends and family eat in these restaurants where I find nothing really acceptable for my vegetarian tastes.

I have no objection to eating food that has been cooked in a pan which was once used to cook meat, but I know many non-religious vegetarians living across the nations of the world that would NOT entertain that as an acceptable option And why would I take it upon myself to badger another about why they think a certain way? Not my task in life, and not my religion to not let another enjoy what they eat in the way and place and setting they want to eat it in.

[Pan]

is it really okay for a customer to bring outside food into (another) restaurant?

Baby food for a baby? Yes, it is okay to do that. What possible reason could there be to oppose that?

I would take it one step further. Why didn’t the parents hire a sitter? In my opinion children in general do not belong in restaurants. If they can have smoke free and Cell phone free restaurants…

Then no babies should ever be permitted in restaurants? What's next? Baby-free buses, baby-free flights (I might like those, in theory, but I'd never condone such a practice)? The key in this situation ought to be behavior, not age. If the baby carries on and the parents can't or won't calm the baby by whatever means is appropriate, out they go. Otherwise, why are you laying in on this issue? You were a baby once, too - weren't we all. Babies are people, too.

[tanabutler]

Never mind.

Edited September 23, 2003 by tanabutler (log)

[Craig Camp]

Vegetarians across the globe, a very large number, even if we only consider the hundreds of millions that come from the Indian Diaspora, will not eat at a vegetarian restaurant if the same kitchen were cooking meat or fish or poultry. Even the least religious vegetarian amongst them would find it offensive to have to eat in such a restaurant and from such a kitchen.

I never knew India and Wales had so much in common.

[Fat Guy]

I never knew India and Wales had so much in common.

And that's in addition to Simon M.

[Craig Camp]

And so in ending, yes, to me, and a majority of my minority members, religion is just as much a figment of our imaginations as hate and love. Honoring one means honoring the other. If we find honor and respect for religion, we are told to honor and respect the beliefs and faiths of all that we meet no matter how different their ways are from our own.

So to get the argument back on track you suggest they were wrong to kick her out? They did not honor or respect her beliefs any more than they did theirs.

The proper thing to do would have been for the restaurant to offer something vegetarian for the baby. The proper thing for the mother do would have been to ask for something vegetarian when the problem was first mentioned.

Both sides clearly dealt with the situation badly. It takes both sides screwing up to get international headlines and a thread this long.

[KatieLoeb]

In general I agree with this, but I find baby food the exception, should we ban baby bottles and breast milk as well?

As a mother with young children who frequents restaurants quite a bit, I have had  jarred food in my bag 'just in case' every time I went out, though I rarely used it I felt better knowing that if my baby didn't like what the restaurant had to offer or if I didn't think there was anything appropriate I could use my jar.

I somehow seriously doubt that you'd become belligerent and rude if the restaurant informed you that you'd brought an "offending" item into their space. Yes, she didn't wake up that morning setting out to purposefully piss off the vegetarians, but having been told that she'd brought something offensive (to them - and it's their space so they set the rules) into their dining area, she had the option of politely leaving the premises or politely asking their assistance in feeding her hungry child. Pretty straightforward from my perspective. Baby food might be the exception, but you just don't walk into a restaurant with your own food and drink. Period. It's unthinkable under any other circumstance. Why is this any different?

And Suvir - it's so nice to read your incredibly erudite and universally gracious posts. You are a man who expresses himself with all that has gone into his perspective, and does so very eloquently. Thank you for your serene demeanor and global outlook. It's always an education for me.

[tommy]

I would take it one step further. Why didn’t the parents hire a sitter? In my opinion children in general do not belong in restaurants. If they can have smoke free and Cell phone free restaurants…

i can't help but think this comment was designed to get a rise out of people.

[Suvir Saran]

I would take it one step further. Why didn’t the parents hire a sitter? In my opinion children in general do not belong in restaurants. If they can have smoke free and Cell phone free restaurants…

i can't help but think this comment was designed to get a rise out of people.

And it did.

[Suvir Saran]

And Suvir - it's so nice to read your incredibly erudite and universally gracious posts.  You are a man who expresses himself with all that has gone into his perspective, and does so very eloquently.  Thank you for your serene demeanor and global outlook.  It's always an education for me.

Not sure how serene my demeanor really is or how global my outlook. You are one that thinks so, certainly even on this thread, there are others that would not think similarly.

Proves exactly what I had said in one of my posts. We have many faces to all situations and none is any more appropriate than another.

I thank you for encouraging me to babble on... you are too kind.

[bergerka]

Suvir! Your posts are wonderful--thank you so much!

(Just had to say that, ok?)

K

[Hest88]

Secular restaurants do exist in many cultures and countries and cities. They give the same respect to people choices as those afforded to the religious in their religion bound restaurants. It is one and the same thing...... It is all about tradition, belief and custom.

Suvir, there were so many lovely pieces from your post I could have chosen, but I will confine myself to this one. Thank you for the eloquent and thought-provoking piece.

[Suvir Saran]

Suvir!  Your posts are wonderful--thank you so much!

(Just had to say that, ok?)

K

Thanks for the encouraging words.

[WHT]

I would take it one step further. Why didn’t the parents hire a sitter? In my opinion children in general do not belong in restaurants. If they can have smoke free and Cell phone free restaurants…

i can't help but think this comment was designed to get a rise out of people.

No Tommy it was not. I guess I grew up in different times and with different social norms than a lot of you. Infants where not taken to restaurants or museums for the most part. Children where expected to behave not run around like pack animals. You dressed for dinner as well as some other traditions that indicated a level of civility.

[WHT]

I feel no pity for this woman and the assumption she made. I guess the old saw about assume is relevant here. The restaurant is under no obligation to allow outside food or utensils to be used. That should be the main point of this whole thing. Not what type of joint it is or any other factor.

The whole point.

[Basildog]

WHT, is the date of birth in your profile correct?

[Suvir Saran]

Secular restaurants do exist in many cultures and countries and cities. They give the same respect to people choices as those afforded to the religious in their religion bound restaurants. It is one and the same thing...... It is all about tradition, belief and custom.

Suvir, there were so many lovely pieces from your post I could have chosen, but I will confine myself to this one. Thank you for the eloquent and thought-provoking piece.

Again, I owe each of you just as many thanks and appreciation for your own posts. My thoughts stem from those shared by each of you. They are part of what you create by leaving here words to reflect upon.

I was driving around NYC today with a couple that was vegetarian, and unlike me they are very Strict Vegetarians. They had only one thing to say to me after I shared with them the details about the incident and the debate here. The wife said, when she meets Americans and speaks to them about her secular but strict vegetarian beliefs, Jews and Christian friends of theirs in American have no way of understanding her belief in vegetarian diet for it has no religious founding. She says she invariably has to include religion, tell the person chastising her for her individual belief system, and say she is a Kosher Observing Indian and then she is granted space to believe what she does. She said in the last 33 years in NY, she has found some respect from non-Indians by having to do this. Has she found very many restaurants where she can eat safely without fear of being cheated on her beliefs? No. Most restaurants she has realized, after trick questioning of wait staff and chefs, have agreed later that meat broths or such were added to her specifically asked for vegetarian food. It has taught her to mostly eat in restaurants run by immigrants from countries that have had people from parts of the world where vegetarianism can thrive without coded rules of its existence.

She ended by saying that she hopes someday, her neighbors and fellow citizens of the US can understand life in a more intricate and evolved manner and grant her similar respect and freedoms as that given to those with religiously understood and thus protected dietary predilections.

It will happen. I am sure we will learn with time how life is not just about fads we take away from foreign lands and people, but also about affording those very foreign lands and cultures some of our time and thought. If we can take stuff from others, we also ought to understand them better and treat them and their causes with the very minimum dignity and privilege we even afford our pets, who belong to another form of life. It is that what we are hoping to teach so many other nations and lands in our mission today or bringing our way of life and liberty to other lands and people.

Acceptance in its most basic level is not really all that difficult, but it becomes second nature only after we have really discovered it and enjoyed beauty that comes from true acceptance of what is foreign. It takes time, effort and great strength to accept that which breaks all our comfortable and safe assumptions about life. It is not easy to see what we have been trained to understand as normal suddenly not seeming all that normal. Normal is only what we make things out to be. What is normal to one can be quite abnormal and scary to another.

I told her about eGullet, and how whilst I was certainly a minority in this forum, in this discussion to, but that still, things are changing and people are really more accepting today than they were when she and her husband and his father first moved to the US. I believe in times to come, we shall find more acceptance for secular dietary beliefs and in time vegetarian will again go to mean simply what vegetarian has meant for the longest of time, "One who does not eat any meat, poultry, game, fish, shellfish or crustacea, or slaughter by-products such as gelatine or animal fats. "