Perhaps you would rather that people like me don't eat out at all, or perhaps we should wear a 'D" on an armband so that we can be identified and restaurants can decide if they want to serve my kind.
I have a dietetic restriction, too. No wheat gluten. No barley. No malt. No rye. No kamut. That's why I'd never go to an all-you-can-eat bread place and complain about the fact that bread has wheat in it. Bread is made from wheat.
Sushi, by definition, is rice with vinegar in it. That's all sushi means. Not fish, not the little dodads on top. Not the nori (seaweed). Just rice. Sushi is rice with vinegar.
What, exactly, do you think would be fair, in light of the fact that sushi is just rice? Should they change the definition just for you?
I don't expect them to change anything for me. If I can't eat in a restaurant, tough to be me. The world owes me nothing insofar as special accommodations to make me somehow feel better about the fact that I have a disease that keeps me from eating things everyone else eats.
I am not asking to have anything change I just don't like the blanket attacks on this guy by so many of the previous posters. None of them were there yet quite a few of our so called "conservative FRiends" lambasted this guy and raked him over the coals with out having all the information.