But, for the benefit of those willing and able to learn, let's turn first to Romans 8:19-22, shall we?
19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
From this starting point with the Apostle Paul, one gains the understanding that animals did not sin, but were subjected to pain, suffering and death through no fault of their own due to the actions of man. Furthermore, one gains the understanding that animals will themselves be delivered from corruption, ie sin and death.
Furthermore, even a casual student of the Bible should be familiar with the Edenic existence present prior to the fall of man. Animals were not food and they were not clothing. Man was not aware and therefore not ashamed of his nakedness.
So, before we ever even get out of the book of Genesis, we learn that animals were not put on this earth for food or clothing, the statement of mine that appears to have led to controversy, for some odd reason.
Would anyone care to continue? It's acceptable and permissible to eat meat and has been since the days of Noah. With this I have no problem, I eat meat myself. But, I do not knowingly patronize anyone who is cruel to their animals. The righteous man regardeth the life of his beast, while the mercies of the wicked are cruel.
As was stated upthread, they're already giving their lives for our sustenance. Don't torment animals, be merciful. That's the Biblical way for those who care to learn and understand.
And no one on this thread has even remotely insinuated they were in favor of cruelty to animals.