This article (https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/national-international/chick-fil...) says it is because they include milk and eggs, which doesn't make sense, because while vegans avoid those, vegetarians eat milk and eggs. However, the article also says they don't have any designated area for prep, so your cauliflower may touch chicken or may share a fryer with chicken.
As an aside, I can kinda understand vegetarians eating eggs because chickens will just lay them and you either eat them or they rot, but vegetarians who eat milk have no moral ground to stand on.
I have a friend who won't eat any animal which has died for religious reasons.
She eats plenty of dairy, as nothing died, and considers herself vegetarian. She has in fact never eaten meat once in her life yet you have entirely discounted her moral standing.
I just think that the condemnation of others who one considers less pure than is ideal is extremely counterproductive.
For example, I often imagine what our carbon budget (and theoretical karma budget) would look like if we could get more people who are pro-animal welfare (and people who are concerned with climate change,) to accept the idea that getting a few billion people to eat less beef might be more beneficial than getting a few million to eat no beef.
There is a really interesting paper on this topic which often comes to mind titled "The seductions of clarity." [0]
There is also an interview by Sean Carrol with the author of that paper titled "C. Thi Nguyen on Games, Art, Values, and Agency" [1]
Not technically true, although the reality of how the industry works means that the offspring of dairy cows are often used to make veal.
A cow must get pregnant to begin producing milk, but because we breed dairy cows for milk they produce much more than the calf needs anyway. Male calves are doomed either way to be slaughtered by the realities of how the industry works, but there is no requirement that things be this way.
Eggs are similar in that they don't technically require any particular cruelty, but the realities of how the industry functions means that male chicks are killed shortly after birth. Again, it need not be this way.
One view of how this informs our diet is that eating eggs and dairy are not necessarily cruel, they are just cruel in practice. Whereas meat consumption necessitates the killing of animals.
I don't drink milk (I don't like it), but I do eat meat. But I totally agree that the dairy industry is pretty grim, even here in the UK where we have pretty good animal rights.
Loads of calves die to supply milk, and cows are kept in a near permanent state of either being in milk (and missing their calves) or pregnant.
I really don't mind what anyone eats or drinks - but anyone who claims to be vegetarian 'because of the animals' - but then consumes dairy, is on pretty weak ground.
It’s possible to do something for moral reasons and have some measure of hypocrisy in how consistently we apply those moral principles. That doesn’t mean the effort in doing so was a waste, or that it would be better to not have tried! Let’s not let perfect be the enemy of good.
Eggs aren't a good choice either by that reasoning unless you go way out of your way to ensure they come from a source that treats their chickens well. Chickens in general are very poorly treated.
