Two sides of Meat Ban.

What we call as the meat ban issue is just another symptom of the conflicts that take place at individual, community and state level between people who do not accept diversity.

Individual Level

As an Individual I am against consumption of meat, this can be due to religious, moral, ethical or philosophical reasons. I may decide to limit my views to my kitchen and to the kitchens of the restaurants I patronize.

Similarly another Individual will be pro-meat and restrict his views to his kitchen and the restaurants he patronises.

We may decide to work together but never eat together, Or we may decide to never work together or we may decide to work together and spend our time proselyting each other.

Community level

If a group of people feel very strongly about a certain issue, They can group together with other like-minded individual's and form a community.  Such a community may decide to pool in their resources and build a dedicated housing society, shopping complexes etc. which cater to their needs. This community may  make it a pre-requisite to follow certain norms as a condition for entry.
Two communities with opposite views may decide to either cooperate in areas of no-conflict, go their individual ways, or work actively to undermine the other community and convert them to their belief.

State level

In theory, the state has no role to play in these individual or group differences, But the state represent's a vast power. A power to impose it's will with the maximum violence. This power attracts the real fanatics, those who would like to subvert the state and use it to wage war against those opposed to its viewpoints.
A state is supposed to accept diversity and focus on providing security and justice to each diverse group.
Those interested in capturing state power are focused on ending diversity and ensuring homogeneity. And the end result in the various issues we call food, language or cultural impositions.

My View

There are two sides to the meat conflict. The problem arises when either of the two group's decides not to accept diversity and starts imposing its views on the other group.

We see symptoms of this problem across the spectrum; be it the language war's, cultural wars, religious wars, caste wars, class wars or food wars. Each of these sections have eventually tried to capture state power to impose its will on the other.
There are as many issues to wage war on as there are individuals, If we eliminate all the above and bring in homogeneity, it wont take long for someone to whip up passion on fast bowling against spin bowling with one section calling the other aggressive barbarians with no tact and the other using names like crafty, cunning,undependable, untrustworthy to describe the first group, and before long we will have two political parties gaining popularity by agitating to ban either spin or fast bowling.

Both sections on the current food war have tried in the past to use political power to impose its will.
With one side demanding meat to be served in spaces dedicated to non-meat eaters and the other side demanding the opposite.
With one side demanding societies(housing or otherwise), temple and other community space dedicated to vegetarians, serve meat or allow meat to be served while other side demanding the opposite. And on being denied their demands both sides have tried to use the power of state to impose its will on the other.

• Meat Ban is not the problem, 
• The problem is refusal to accept diversity. 
• The problem is using this diversity to create points of conflict and drive wedges between sections of community.
• The problem is using state power or other means of violence to impose one's views on the other.