Nothing compels a restaurant to have vegetarian options, but they choose to for the sake of making it possible for people with different needs/restrictions to eat together.
Some places can’t do it, but many try to accommodate, especially since omnivores have the ability to eat the vegetarian/ vegan options. It’s not that people who eat meat are obligate carnivores, like cats.
A restaurant that chooses to cater to vegetarians and vegans does not have to serve meat to the omnivore guest because the omnivore can likely eat things from the menu. Whether they want to is another matter. But that’s not the restaurant’s problem nor should they be obligated to make purchases for meals that are unlikely to be eaten at their place.
But should I really have to explain this? It seems that as Harters noted, this is more a provocation to a fight than a genuine question.
