So, it ends the giveaway. Then, volunteers steal the meat (with the store's tacit permission) and give it away for free, and this is ruled as legal.

Then we get lectured that this is a good result "because you guys need to learn the importance of accommodating vegetarians".

You object and say, "But ... this is the same as what the store was doing before, it's just that the meat is harder to find but every bit as useless to vegetarians" and you only get blank stares and lectures about "It's just that some of us care about those who can't eat meat, and aren't mindlessly obsessed with profits and cost-saving. The grocery store already makes a ton of profit anyway".

[1] Let's assume there's also a law, that the store complies with, that says "any store selling meat must also have tofu available for sale".

Demolishing the building would be an expensive undertaking, and it might cripple a useful organization that needed the building to operate. That's not to say it's the wrong move, though. It's precisely that unpleasantness which creates the aversion to ignoring the ADA in the first place. Lots of people building buildings might have other uses for the space occupied by the wheelchair ramp in mind.

I'm not sure what the answer is - just finding a closer analogy.