Ethicists' commentary on balancing religious tolerance and animal welfare

Ethical question of the month, December 2024
As a veterinarian contemplating a position at a federal meat processing plant, I am extremely uncomfortable with the recent federal injunction to forgo the requirement to ensure insensibility before hoisting/processing an animal to be slaughtered for the Kosher market without prior stunning. The rationale for the injunction, as I read it, is a concern that doing the sensibility checks takes too much time and it is resulting in a reduction in available product for that market. I feel that this is an unacceptable rationale given the risk that an animal being processed might still be sensible and how that conflicts with my personal ethics as well as the veterinary oath, but I am also aware of the charged societal implications.
So, the question is, is it acceptable for a government to knowingly allow a practice that will pose considerable risk of suffering to an animal to address the concerns of a group with an ideology that accepts the risk of animal suffering to create a rules-based product?
Clare Palmer, Peter Sandøe, & Dan Weary comment on this dilemma and you can read it here: Ethicists’ commentary on balancing religious tolerance and animal welfare (pdf)