> Finally, I think it weakens the approachability of your third paragraph argument (why bother, states should do it instead) that it comes after your second arg

> Finally, I think it weakens the approachability of your third paragraph argument (why bother, states should do it instead) that it comes after your second argument (environmentalists don't even help the environment) or your first argument (vegans annoy me because I can't eat gluten, why aren't people listening to me). Yes, this is true. I would dispute your distillation of my first paragraph. It is not vegans or vegetarians that annoy me, it is the fact that groups and organizations are choosing to catering first and foremost for people who have fundamentally chosen not to eat something, rather than those who cannot eat something because of a physical disability. It means the interests of rich, abled-bodied people are once again being put above the interests of disabled people (Who are more likely to be poor, because they have invested a significant amount of money in coping with their disability -- as a celiac, for example, bread is 3x the price of normal bread, for a loaf about half the size (this is true for most other grain-based things)).