As a non-Muslim in upstate NY I see Halal meat as a net positive influence. It enables a local alternative supply chain for meat: some restaurants around here sell really delicious meat, often things like lamb and goat you don't see every day. Also a lot of non-Muslim farmers can make a living because of this supply chain.
By definition this kind of order relationship is a marker of «power» struggle.
Let's take the example of the kosher/allahl for instance, in a term of organoleptic quality kosher/allahl is the same as normal food. So rigourously on the level that that matters the minority is not harming the majority, except that ritual are first increasing the costs of food, secondly being used to found some «religious mafia».
Do you want your everyday food when you are in the majority of the atheists / not very praticant religious people found proselytism?
Should the tolerant people be forced to found intolerance?
Second example; the peanuts/gluten/allergy free food: it seems harmless, isn't it?
Except that early exposure to allergens is strongly suspected (see amish) to help build resistance to allergies & asthma (see toys dolls). Thus, selling exclusively allergens free food diminishes the risks for a minority at the price of exposing the young majority to even more problems in the future.
Having recently met too much healthy food delirant retarded for my own sanity, they often blame their allergies to «the lack of hygiene» (they often correlate with poverty), and imposes their food choices to the majority.
This question of the power of any group (whatever their size is) is a classical of the social contract where the Nation is supposed to limit freedom in regard of the common interest. It is a protestant way of thinking.
I think about theology too and I see kosher/halal as giving respect to the animal like (1) indigenous hunters do, and (2) a bit like Christians saying grace. You might say Roman style animal sacrifice is barbaric and it is but offering something people will consume is not.