Alternate 'Free' Access

Imagine you are a person full of idealistic civic virtue who happens to be a vegan, one who honestly believes that eating meat is not just bad but morally wrong. One day you join an organization made up of similarly thinking vegans. Eventually your life becomes more and more involved with this organization to the point that you become employed through one of their subsidiaries. As part of that employment you enroll in a food co-op system in which your employer, along with many others of similar disposition, create a system aimed to share the costs of and increase access to delicious vegan food. This arrangement is great and works for those involved. One day the government decides that food sharing agreements amongst citizens must include access to meat and that vegan organizations must provide it for free. This new edict not only raises the costs of your food sharing agreement but also limits the selection of vegan food in order to pay for this ‘free’ meat. You don’t eat meat, so from your standpoint you only see increased costs for less food. Some of your co-workers who were not part of the stricter organization ate meat before the edict and it was readily available outside of the vegan food co-op. Your vegan organization’s leadership is distraught because they are morally opposed to meat consumption but now their subsidiary is, by coercion of law, forced into it. How would this scenario be reported within the context of today’s political sensibilities? Would the vegan organization and its supporters be slandered as wanting to ban meat eating? What justification would be given for forcing vegans to pay for the meat of others? What if the government presented a ‘compromise’ where instead of forcing vegan organizations to provide food co-op plans including meat they required the co-op’s food providers to include it to vegans for ‘free’? How would that be received? Perhaps figurative vegans should consider it.