I’d argue that more or less every restaurant already has at least one vegan ‘option’, although not necessarily a good one. If they have french fries with ketchup, or bread and margarine, they already comply with a hypothetical law.
And I don’t see any way to mandate “offer at least one delicious option” as that’s up for debate and nothing objective.
I guess more and more restaurants are adding vegetarian and vegan options nowerdays purely because there’s a demand for it. If there’s a group of five looking for a restaurant where only one of the group is a vegan, most groups will pick a restaurant that caters everyone’s needs. Thus, having no such option will result in less customers and less income.
It doesn’t have to be delicious, but it should contain most of the essential nutrients, at least similar to the non-vegan options. “French fries with ketchup” doesn’t meet this requirement.
I see no reason why a restaurant should be forced to cater to everybody.
Yeah, what’s next, the pizza place has to also serve steaks? The patisserie must serve gumbo?
How about no.
Veganism isn’t like Celiac or life threatening allergies. It’s literally a personal choice. A private business is under no obligation to cater to that.
Where government involvement begins and ends in terms of private business is (imo) in mandating no discrimination against things that individuals have no choice about (Gender, sexuality, race, age, etc)
But choices are a different beast. The government has no business being involved in that.
If a Vegan restaurant would do well in that area, someone would open it. If a restaurant does well with their vegan options, they keep them, if they don’t do well, they remove them. It’s called supply and demand.
