Eating at a restaurant isn't the only option for food though. When Subway has their $2 sandwiches in December, I eat there almost every day. When they don't, I bring my lunch from home.
Which means buying more food from the grocery store. What's the difference? Both need employees to sell their food.
You should send an email to the Employment Policy Institute and let them know, because you know way more than they do about this.
Notice that this article addresses the drop in "teen" employment rates. Not that overall employment had any change. This only means employers began hiring older adults instead of teenagers, which makes perfect sense given the increased pay rate would increase the number of interested adults. I don't see many teenagers at fast food places anymore. But does that mean no one is working the register or the grill? No, it just means employers are now more selective in who they hire. At a flippin $3.35 an hour, I worked at McDonalds back in 1987 as my first job. Virtually everyone I worked with was a teenager. Why? Because only high school kids would work at such a low rate of pay.
Look, you folks are the ones who need to demonstrate a clear case proving the minimum wage causes unemployment. The fact is this used to be the conventional wisdom among economists until more recent evidence has pretty much made it a moot point. According to the wiki:
"Until the 1990s, economists generally agreed that raising the minimum wage reduced employment. This consensus was weakened when some well-publicized empirical studies showed the opposite, although others confirmed the original view. Today's consensus, if one exists, is that increasing the minimum wage has, at worst, minor negative effects." ( "A Blunt Instrument; The Minimum Wage," The Economist, October 28, 2006)