What has other meat got to do with it? Many people find it very hard to keep fully informed about every single food production practice, but never-the-less form opinions about certain processes, which they believe are worth taking a position on.
And appealing to the RSPCA as the arbiter of animal welfare is not the final word. For example, I know people who think that the RSPCA Freedom Food label does not go far enough in chicken welfare, since they do not require the chickens to have any time outdoors. These people would rather have free range chicken, believing it to be a higher animal welfare standard than the RSPCA requires.
I meant my second point. I realise that I'd numbered the previous questions also, so I apologise for any confusion caused. You said a refusal to serve (stunned) halal/kosher would be racist. I think you're wrong. Even inserting the word "stunned", people are free to make decisions It doesn't make them racist, even unwittingly so. You seem to back-pedal on that yourself, when you say that it depends on their justification. Well, their justification is on welfare grounds. (That's certainly mine). And then you talk about consistency. It's not always possible to be consistent in food production. There is no legal definition for free range pork, for example. So some people might feel it's important to take a stance on chicken because they are well-informed on the issue, but can't make the same level of judgement on pork. So leave other meat out of the equation for now. Just on Halal and Kosher meat, is it racist for a cafe to refuse to sell it on welfare grounds?
I'm sorry if this seems like a derail, but I think there is a general principle here about culture and race on which you are wrong. It is relevant to the issue the thread is dealing with.