Discussion Title: Should vegan options be provided to prevent legal liability?

1. Vegan options should be provided to prevent legal liability.
1.1. Pro: Serving vegans could prevent discrimination lawsuits.
1.2. Pro: When vegans are not served in prison vegan meals, some would say that it's a form of cruel and unusual punishment.
1.3. Con: Trying to provide vegans options could encourage vegans to go too far by creating frivolous lawsuits and ones that get in the way of others' rights \(like [neighbors cooking meat on their private property](https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/vegan-woman-demands-neighbour-stop-using-meat-on-barbecue-due-to-smell/news-story/722227ad0000e8cbf9ac8a0e8a554b95)\).
1.3.1. Con: The definition of a natural right should not be prejudiced by a personal interest in the potential application of that right in accordance with law.
1.3.2. Con: Non-veganism is already the practice of disrespecting others' \(ie: animals'\) natural rights. Therefore any restriction to non-veganism has a net effect of reducing the impact against others' natural rights.
1.3.2.1. Pro: Slaughtering or farming animals is a greater offense against natural rights than preventing the consumption of meat.
1.3.3. Con: Law must decide whether smoke pollution is an unlawful nuisance with regards for the impact of the smoke in any given case: considering harmfulness, intensity and frequency, etc.
1.3.4. Con: A vegan is no less of a vegan for being involuntarily exposed to the smell of meat.
1.3.5. Pro: Some non-vegan products are too difficult or too costly to be provided as a vegan alternative.
1.3.5.1. Con: Only the basic needs of an individual are vital needs. Strict vegan copies of non-vegan products are usually not necessary in order to respect a vegan's natural rights.
1.3.6. Con: Frivolous lawsuits will happen no matter what.
1.4. Con: Giving vegans options has actually lead to lawsuits themselves. Burger King providing the Impossible Whopper [got sued](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/burger-king-sued-by-vegans-for-alleged-impossible-whopper-contamination/) for not letting consumers know about it contacting meat.
1.4.1. Con: Any service provider should exercise due care to ensure their product is fit for consumption by the target market. The example given says the company advertised a "meat free" product, but cooked it on the same broiler as traditional meat patties, thereby contaminating the meat-free patty with traces of meat.
1.5. Pro: That'll prevent [free speech violations](https://vegnews.com/2020/2/vegan-brand-miyoko-s-sues-california-for-violating-free-speech-with-restrictive-labeling) from potential censorship.
1.6. Pro: Not protecting vegan beliefs on a job could lead to lawsuits.