The vid clarifies it as even more of an obvious injustice because the owner apparently woke up to the bullshit of veganism in general. Whether or not she's couching financial motives in ideological clothing, I don't know, but she claims she once thought veganism was the healthier, more moral choice, but then she realised 'that's not true' and decided to support local farmers with a new non-vegan menu. So it's an indirect callout of veganism as an ideology and these protesters are probably angry not just at the restaurant but the idea of being called wrong.
Most every vegan I have met was the "ethical" vegan variety, in that they really just hate and are disgusted by factory farming. When push comes to shove, if they have any brain at all, they realise that supporting locally raised meat is the better option all around.
They probably started serving meat when they were forced to reach out to a bigger consumer base in light of increased business operating costs in California.
Yeah, I have no doubt about that, and I get that a vegan restaurante does not sound like a sustainable business, but if you court vegans and brand yourself as vegan, why would there be surprise that your customers are upset when you stop being vegan? It's like a peanut allergy; you have to make sure your filthy meat stuff doesn't touch their politically/morally pure foods, lest they be contaminated with actual proteins.
There are plenty of pizza places that serve hot subs or calzones. Having a wine bar that also has whiskey isn't unusual. An item not being in the name of the restaurant is fine. But "vegan" isn't really a food item, it's a cultural/religious choice. It'd be like having a baconator as an option at a Jewish deli: Technically, nothing says they can't, it just seems VERY out of place.
Much as I loathe vegans...can you really call yourself a vegan restaurante if you start serving meat?
The vid clarifies it as even more of an obvious injustice because the owner apparently woke up to the bullshit of veganism in general. Whether or not she's couching financial motives in ideological clothing, I don't know, but she claims she once thought veganism was the healthier, more moral choice, but then she realised 'that's not true' and decided to support local farmers with a new non-vegan menu. So it's an indirect callout of veganism as an ideology and these protesters are probably angry not just at the restaurant but the idea of being called wrong.
Most every vegan I have met was the "ethical" vegan variety, in that they really just hate and are disgusted by factory farming. When push comes to shove, if they have any brain at all, they realise that supporting locally raised meat is the better option all around.
Mostly vegan.
They probably started serving meat when they were forced to reach out to a bigger consumer base in light of increased business operating costs in California.
Yeah, I have no doubt about that, and I get that a vegan restaurante does not sound like a sustainable business, but if you court vegans and brand yourself as vegan, why would there be surprise that your customers are upset when you stop being vegan? It's like a peanut allergy; you have to make sure your filthy meat stuff doesn't touch their politically/morally pure foods, lest they be contaminated with actual proteins.
I wouldn't want a vegan to cook me chicken, they would likely serve it raw!
Can you call yourself a steakhouse and serve salads?
Sure, unless your name is 'Only Steaks and No Salads', although people that eat steak would be less inclined to care about the presence of salads.
There are plenty of pizza places that serve hot subs or calzones. Having a wine bar that also has whiskey isn't unusual. An item not being in the name of the restaurant is fine. But "vegan" isn't really a food item, it's a cultural/religious choice. It'd be like having a baconator as an option at a Jewish deli: Technically, nothing says they can't, it just seems VERY out of place.
Yes seems like they had it coming lol.