pickleport

According to the article they chose to remain anonymous.

You make it sound like your decadences cost little ("10 percent externality") and give you lots of happiness, when it's the other way around -- things like eating cattle, fish -- things like driving -- have huge environmental costs and probably don't make you that much happier or better off.

Why the tone? I didn't comment on the ethics of the policy.

It doesn't say whether it's a corporate policy, but it is in the first line of the article.

The kerfuffle started when word spread that the police were repeatedly evicting elderly Korean patrons from a McDonald’s in Queens. The Koreans have been milking their stays over $1.09 coffees, violating the restaurant’s 20-minute dining limit.

Why?

Two questions:

1. What makes you think this is the worst case? (That is, not comparable to the average case.)

2. Why is it unacceptable to stop eating meat or drinking milk?

Addressing both you and the parent, I think it's more that bias implies a resistance to any other perspective. So it's bad after all, but not because it's wrong per se, but because the biased person isn't open considering to whether it's right or wrong in the first place.