Which, if true, is a decision society has made.
They actually do. You're exaggerating.
I do note the sarcasm, but you need to note that a lot of this is a reflection of how too many people have shown too much disrespect for the rights of others to live their lives in accordance with their own beliefs and values. If people treated everyone else with uniform respect and dignity for the life each person is leading, based on that person's beliefs and values rather than their own, then there wouldn't be any reason to establish "rights".
Legislators aren't morons, no matter what whiners wish to contend: They pass laws based on sound foundations, specific instances where people did things that significantly violated society's consensus morality. The problem with laws (and rules), is that they cannot always be crafted finely enough to draw a clear delineation. Sometimes laws fail to cover situations that should be cover, or cover situations that shouldn't be covered. That is the price of the imprecise nature of the human experience. (In other words, that's life.) It is better to have laws (and rules), even though sometimes they miss the mark by a marginal amount than to have no laws (or rules) and have rampant, gross transgression.
Well, in this case, it is hard to know what you mean by labeling that as sarcasm. The reality is that the OP can readily be classified as a "ME ME ME" perspective, since it puts the OP's personal preferences regarding dining experiences over that of others.