There are a lot of things I don't like to eat and I'm pretty sure that I would find eating in prison quite troublesome, regardless of what the food is.
It's one of the many prices you pay for breaking the law, but surely losing your freedom and seeing the world move on without you should dominate this unease?
Well there is a major distinction here. We aren't talking about "i don't care for meat." We are talking about someone's deeply held convictions on morality. Oftentimes vegetarianism is a major part of their identity and culture.
A vegetarian diet can be part of a relgious practce. Plenty of Indian religions emphasize a vegetarian diet - Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism. As well as well as the Seventh-day Adventist, a Christian religion.
People can willfully choose their own religion too but it is considered unethical to force a group of people to convert to your preferred religion. In fact that can be considered a form of ethnic cleansing in some situations.
FYI - i personally am a vegetarian (for over a decade) for ethical reasons and being forced to eat meat would be extremely horrific for me. And i don't think that i would be able to eat fish at all without vomiting. Feel free to make fun of me or whatever.
> People can willfully choose their own religion too but it is considered unethical to force a group of people to convert to your preferred religion.
That's why I asked for a test procedure. Someone can claim that they genuinely believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and therefore must wear a colander on their head, and without a test, how do you distinguish that from a clothing restriction from a major world religion? You either need some internal test on the mindset of the individual (e.g. a polygraph, if those worked), or an external test on the claimed religion (e.g. a minimum number of global followers).
"A fixed or firm belief" - hm, sounds like religion all right. So, just like a person can't choose a religion, neither can they willfully choose a conviction?
I see the distinction, I'm just saying the prisoner's ethics are irrelevant: the society decides what rights and privileges prisoners get in prison, regardless of what they think they are entitled to.
Do you not understand that perhaps other people might feel differently? And are you unable to empathise with that point of view?