Voice of America reports:
I have no reason to think that the horse meat ban was motivated by religion. Rather, I suspect that most voters supported it because of their gut feeling that eating horse is disgusting or, in the words of one critic of eating horse meat, “morally perverse,” “a perversion of the human-animal bond.” Still, is there an ethically relevant difference (rather than just an economic difference) between the Indian beef ban, the hypothetical American pork ban, or the California horse meat ban?
Is it ethically or constitutionally improper to ban a certain kind of meat for religious reasons, but proper for equally unproven and unprovable intuitive ethical reasons? How much does it matter that the beef ban seems to be seen as offensive by a fairly substantial religious minority (Muslims), for whom beef is an important part of their diet, while very few Californians would have eaten horse meat even without the ban?