I sense a blind hatred here. pick the following 2 scenarios
(1) Do not feed us animals prohibited by our religion
(2) Do not allow non-hindus to eat animals they love to eat.
Which one infringes right of others ? which one is harmless.
You know where I see sign's of blind Hatred ?
When a personal picks up a user name "wine and STAKE" just to participate in discussion on "beef" and insult hindu
Scenario (1) is applicable to both Hindus and Muslims. Beef is prohibited to Hindus and Pork is prohibited to muslims. Muslims are free to demand a ban on pork too. I am sure Hindus will support it.
Scenario (2) is NOT applicable as no state allows everything people "love" to do. Including Rape, incest, etc. If people "love" drugs, we are not going to make it legal either.
But how convenient that you choose the "right" of non-Hindus over the "right" of Hindus, and in the same tone accuse me of hate
In the "Pork situation", there was a good possibility that some of the kids may give it a try out of curiosity and eat Pork. is this allowable ?. This is not like serving beef/pork to grown college students in hostel. who are the responsible people in the school ? I understand destruction of some furniture is too much, at least those erumely folks did not prevent non-muslims from eating pork ? What the teacher did was a minor mistake and should be excused.
Then why did the "secular" Kerala and malayalee NOT hold a Pork festival as a protest against the school violence INSIDE KERALA ? Why hold a beef festival to protest against something that happened in far away Maharasthrat ?
Is the "secular" kerala more worried about what happens in Maharashtra than what happens INSIDE kerala ?
Finally consensual sex is NOT allowed between College management and staff with grown college Students. It is because it is immoral, unethical, exploitative and manipulative. Its breach of faith and trust. Similarly beef cannot be allowed in college student hostel. The logic is the same. But you do not see it because of blind hatred that clouds your judgement.
See that is the difference. All this Maharashtra ban does, is take Hinduism to extremes, condemn mild-hindus/low-caste hindus/chrisitans/muslims/parsees from savouring beef, which should be condemned.
See how this works ? All Maharasthra ban has done is respected the desire of the majority and has made laws to protect the right of the majority. They way it should he done in any and all democracy.
You have a problem because it is based on Hindu desire and not non Hindu desires.
.............. now that is were I again see the hate.
The same logic goes in banning drugs which some minority savours.