Grounds for Restriction on the right to choose what to eat

While the act of eating is about survival, the act of choosing what to eat is also about the exercise of religious and cultural rights or the realization of freedom of political expression. The right to eat what you want, without any particular purpose, falls under the “general freedom of action” that derives from the Tenth Amendment's right to pursue happiness. This right has traditionally been restricted on grounds of “public health”, “healthcare”, and “biodiversity,” but more recently it has also been restricted on grounds of “animal welfare” and “the cultural and religious sentiment of the majority. The stated legislative purpose of the special act on banning the consumption of the dog meat is “respect for life and animal welfare”. However, its more fundamental purpose is to protect the rights and freedoms of people with a dog-as-pet approach to life. The legislator exercised legislative discretion based on the general public's legal consciousness and values, as the pet culture has become established today, and there has been a tremendous change in legal attitudes towards the dog meat eating culture. There may be criticisms of cultural intolerance or minority rights protection, or that the objective is not important or urgent enough to warrant restricting the right to eat dog meat. However, as long as it is in the “public interest,” the legislator has broad legislative discretion as to whether or not to enact it. To this perspective, the Constitutional Court must refrain from denying the legitimacy of the legislative purpose itself. Even if the legitimacy of the legislative purpose of ‘majority sentiment’ is recognized, it cannot be seen as a waiver of minority rights since the ‘minority rights’ can be taken into consideration when balancing the interests of the law against ‘majority sentiment’.