No one is talking about being catered to. Somehow most places find it possible to have a non-beef item on a menu. Why can't they also have ONE non-meat/fish item?!

Most chefs hate vegetarianism. It goes against the concept of their art. They like having as large a palate as possible, and vegetarianism is very limiting. It is like telling a painter that he can't use any red in his art, which means no purple, no pink, no fuschia, nothing. Chefs absolutely hate that, especially ones whose favorite color is red! Many would rather just lose the money than be limited so strictly. On the other hand, most - but not all - are sympathetic to actual medical limitations (but despise people who lie about them).

Anonymous wrote:the business owners obviously don't feel the vegetarian market is worth catering to. end of story.

not sure how sizable the market for veg entrees really is, and it's hard to base it on the personal anecdotes of vegetarians.

the thing that gets my gall is when vegetarians expect places like steakhouses to cater to them. you can always eat elsewhere, guys.

I've been a vegetarian for most of my life, and while I would never expect a steakhouse to "cater" to me, many steakhouses tend to have chicken or fish entrees. It does not seem like a huge stretch to have something that contains no meat, since you have already broken with the rule that says steakhouses must serve only steak.

For what it's worth, at such places, I am perfectly fine eating a combination of side dishes. In my experience, steakhouses have some of the best potato sides around.

If the OP is talking about Pulpo, though, I get it. There are plenty of Spanish things that don't have meat in them.

the business owners obviously don't feel the vegetarian market is worth catering to. end of story.

not sure how sizable the market for veg entrees really is, and it's hard to base it on the personal anecdotes of vegetarians.

the thing that gets my gall is when vegetarians expect places like steakhouses to cater to them. you can always eat elsewhere, guys.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's a pretty useless question. Meat eaters can eat vegetarian, but vegetarians do not eat meat. So meat eaters can eat at a vegetarian restaurant and thus opening one doesn't mean alienating an entire group of people.

In theory, yes. But in actuality, most meat-eaters will tend to not patronize an all-vegetarian place. So effect, they are alienating them.

Yes, but if a meat eater is with a vegetarian group and they go to a veg restaurant, the meat eater can always eat something there. Not true the other way around.

Because meat eaters CAN EAT non-meat items at a restaurant. Vegetarians CANNOT eat any thing with meat!

Do vegetarian restaurants offer a meat item on the menu for the times when vegetarians bring a meat eater along. No? Okay, then why ask the same.

Anonymous wrote:That's a pretty useless question. Meat eaters can eat vegetarian, but vegetarians do not eat meat. So meat eaters can eat at a vegetarian restaurant and thus opening one doesn't mean alienating an entire group of people.

In theory, yes. But in actuality, most meat-eaters will tend to not patronize an all-vegetarian place. So effect, they are alienating them.

That's a pretty useless question. Meat eaters can eat vegetarian, but vegetarians do not eat meat. So meat eaters can eat at a vegetarian restaurant and thus opening one doesn't mean alienating an entire group of people.

You could also ask why anyone would open a vegetarian restaurant, since most people do still eat meat.

Do you mean Pulpo? I have to say I'm really disappointed in the lack of veg options at most restaurants. The ones that places usually have are tired and lack protein. They tend to just be afterthoughts. And as DH and I are both veg and don't fancy getting the same dish time after time, we usually just don't go. Disappointing.

I am a vegetarian, and I don't expect every restaurant to cater to me. However, I was often the person who organized the group dinners out, and I only chose places that had good vegetarian options, so it really doesn't seem like good business sense to have such a gaping hole in the menu. It also makes me wonder whether the chef went to a decent cooking school, since decent vegetarian food isn't hard to prepare. A decent mediterranean lentil salad or pasta e fagioli don't require Cordon Bleu training.


I do wonder if they are worried that they won't be able to charge a high enough price to cover their costs, since they think that vegetarians expect to pay less. Honestly, though, people in DC understand enough economics to know that when you are paying for a restaurant meal, you are paying for labor, not ingredients.

I hear you OP. They must be ok with losing business, vegetarians have veto power, and we use it.

That's why when you find a good place with veggie options, especially if they change them frequently, you've got to keep going back. Firefly comes to mind.

Because it takes an imaginative chef to do it right, and not everyone wants to make that effort.

I just don't get it. A new restaurant just opened up in Cleveland Park but their menu has no vegetarian mains. Why would a restaurant do that? Vegetarianism is quite popular in DC and there are many delicious veg dishes out there, within every cuisine type. Why would you want to exclude not just vegetarians but any party that includes any vegetarians at all?