By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Aqua Blu Kitchen & Cocktails, a Toms River restaurant, faces intense backlash after offering a “Proud Boys Burger” as a weekly special. The burger’s name, referencing a designated hate group, sparked outrage online and resulted in a flood of angry calls and messages. Restaurant owner Cathy Varriale expressed deep regret, stating she was unaware of the group’s hateful ideology and that the burger was a poorly conceived joke. Despite removing the burger and issuing an apology, the restaurant continues to receive severe criticism and threats.
Read the original article here
A New Jersey restaurant, Aqua Blu Kitchen & Cocktails, found itself facing intense backlash after introducing a burger dubbed the “Proud Boys” burger. The restaurant owner’s claim that the whole thing was an “ignorant mistake” has been met with widespread skepticism, given the burger’s highly suggestive ingredients and name.
The burger itself was far from subtle. It featured “white American cheese, onion ring layers of truth, resilience pickles, freedom fries, cancel culture coleslaw, and liberty sauce.” The very names of the ingredients, laden with political and ideological connotations, instantly sparked outrage on social media. Many saw the burger’s composition – from the “white American cheese” to the “freedom fries” – as a deliberate attempt to appeal to a specific, controversial political group known for its extremist views.
The restaurant’s claim of ignorance regarding the Proud Boys is difficult to reconcile with the burger’s composition. The detailed and pointed naming of the ingredients suggests a level of thought and intentionality that belies a simple misunderstanding. It’s hard to imagine someone accidentally creating a burger with such loaded terminology, especially given the restaurant’s history of politically-themed burgers.
The owner’s defense – that they were simply unaware of the Proud Boys’ hateful ideology – further fueled the fire. Many feel this explanation rings hollow given the clear political messaging within the burger’s name and ingredients. The apparent lack of self-awareness in the face of widespread condemnation only served to intensify the criticism. It’s a claim that falls flat in the face of evidence suggesting a targeted and deliberately provocative menu item.
The restaurant’s past practices, involving other politically themed burgers like a “Sleepy Joe” burger and a “Trump Burger,” add another layer to the controversy. While the restaurant claims these burgers were intended as “lighthearted jokes,” the stark contrast between the seemingly neutral nature of one and the highly offensive connotations of the other raises serious questions about the restaurant’s motives and overall judgment.
This incident is not simply about a poorly conceived menu item; it highlights a broader issue of social responsibility in business. The restaurant’s actions, regardless of intention, have created significant harm and fueled division. The ensuing discussion about freedom of speech and the consequences of actions taken in the public sphere underscore the complex implications involved. The owner’s attempt to minimize the incident as an “ignorant mistake” feels dismissive of the pain and offense caused.
The online reaction has been swift and significant. Social media platforms exploded with criticism and calls for boycotts. The restaurant’s Google reviews, initially positive, quickly became a torrent of negative feedback, highlighting the immediate and tangible impact of the incident on the business’s reputation and prospects. This public outcry serves as a potent reminder of the power of social media in holding businesses accountable for their actions, and the potential consequences of failing to consider the wider impact of such decisions.
The debate surrounding the “Proud Boys” burger also points to a broader concern about political polarization and the use of food as a platform for political messaging. While businesses have the right to express opinions, doing so in ways that deliberately alienate or offend significant portions of the population can have serious repercussions. The restaurant’s experience serves as a cautionary tale for other establishments considering similar ventures, suggesting the need for extreme caution and a greater awareness of the potential ramifications of aligning their brand with divisive political groups.
Ultimately, the incident leaves a lingering question: was it truly an “ignorant mistake,” or a calculated risk that spectacularly backfired? The overwhelming response suggests the latter. The restaurant’s actions, regardless of the owner’s stated intention, have had profound consequences, leaving a negative stain on their brand and potentially affecting their future prospects. The incident serves as a powerful lesson – perhaps one learned the hard way – about the significant impact businesses can have and the responsibility that comes with operating in the public sphere.