Again, its anyone's choice to choose their own menu. It's immoral to try to limit that--especially when by a very wealthy movie star, trying to close down a plant which supports dozens of much-less-than-wealthy families.
My moral decisions are anchored in scripture--which clearly gives permission (not command) to eat anything you want. You don't want to eat horse-meat? Please don't!
Also please don't try to enshrine your tastes into law.
That's a big problem these days--people confusing their own personal tastes and preferences with universal principles of right and wrong--and visa-versa. That's what's so great about having a bible--as we have THE most universal values there are--those of the Creator. Values which are a lot more reasonable than Bo Derek's.
This is a real issue that is difficult enough without obfuscating the discussion with trying to act as if you alone speak for God on the issue of horse slaughter.
We are also commanded to be good stewards of what we have. Good people may argue the definition of cruelty, but if we could come to agreement on what that is, then it is ~not~ immoral to attempt to prevent cruelty to creatures, it is immoral ~not~ to.
The measure of right and wrong is not in whether people have made a business of it. Ending slavery also closed down an industry that supported lots of families. Slavery was also supported by close reading of scripture. But equally God-fearing people fought against it.
You have an ethic that says this is basically OK. No law is needed to enable your ethic. You are arguing that it is a pro-choice situation. My ethic says it is ~wrong~. If it is wrong, then allowing it to happen is also wrong.
I see, so the fact that it provides people with income makes it OK? By that same logic, we shouldn't try to end abortion, because the abortion clinics provide jobs that feed and clothe families.
Therefore, the dietary restrictions on swine in the Bible are not commands, but are suggestions? Do you eat pork?