I think it’s admirable for farmers to be kind to their animals, and I might even agree to some regulation to that end. But:
Those who oppose this measure are not doing so out of “pro-animal cruelty”, but the recognition that the left systematically uses such seemingly well meaning regulations to strangle American industry.
Many people enthusiastically support the measure out of concern for animals, not realizing how damaging the result would be economically.
Defining existing standards as “cruel” is arguably analogous to including the putting of panties on someone’s head within the definition of “torture”.
Never said they were. I pointed out that there is a Biblical basis for avoiding unnecessary cruelty to animals. I'll admit that the notion of future broiler hens, with their beaks snipped off so they won't peck each other to death after going basically crazy in extremely close confines, does not whet my appetite, and I won't stand up for any "farmer" who would do such a thing. These aren't farmers, they're industrial processors. These practices were not borne of necessity, they were borne of a desire to increase productivity, and in turn, profit. Profit is good, when it's earned in a good way. My definition of good is derived from Biblical precepts. For others, apparently not. That's what voting is for, to establish the will of the people, in a municipality, a county, a state or a country. Californians did that. We're all still free to agree or to disagree, at least for now.