You know those live chicken places in Chinatown? Imagine if they also stocked goats and sheep

I hope you don't eat any meat and are a vegetarian if you feel that way. The argument being, any animal that is killed, halal or not, is suffering. There's no real humane to get meat without killing it.

I guess I'm biased. I grew up on a farm where we killed our livestock. It does not phase me one bit. But as a kid on a farm, you learn that the farm animals are not pets, and eventually will be on your dinner plate. (We were told never to name any of the animals as it creates an attachment).

You say

I've got no problem with Islam and those that follow it.

But if you disapprove of a halal slaughterhouse, then you disagree with Islam because eating halal meat is apart of their religion.

And what is "unnecessary animal suffering"?

If halal meat has to be prepared a certain way which does cause some suffering, then is it really "unnecessary" because its the only way it can be prepared. It's not like they have alternatives.. unless they want to go against Islamic code and eat haram meat. (which most won't do). If there was an alternative, then you would have a point about 'inhumane' treatment.

And according to this article, the way halal meat is prepared could be perceived as humane. Here's some clips from that article.

In both Muslim and Jewish religious slaughter, the act of slitting the throat "stuns the animal", they say, and "there is no delay between stun and subsequent death".

They argue that traditional British methods of stunning, using a captive bolt, gas or electricity, only paralyse the animal so it cannot move and "it is impossible to know whether the animal is feeling pain or not".

And I agree with this statement. To me, stunning the animal before you kill it is actually MORE inhumane than not. Stunning only stops the animal from moving while you're killing it. So you've had a stunned animal that's probably scared already, and now you're going to kill it. At least do the animal some justice by just killing it directly without stunning. Stunning to me seems more like torture than being helpful to the animal since it cannot move to protect itself from your next move.

The area of religious law detailing the method of slaughter also contains information on how the animal must be treated during its life. It is not allowed to have been mistreated or caused any pain and must be provided with enough space to roam, clean water, food and fresh air.

Sounds like "free range meat" to me and sounds pretty humane. Far better than most supermarket meats where animals are locked up in stocks for days and cannot roam.

While we've disjointed the modern "butcher shop" from its past, the butcher is the person who does the slaughter and then separates the cuts. If he was doing it for a business, like where all the cattle would end their drive, then it was a slaughterhouse. The meat would be packed/shipped to other butchers to be cut down and sold. However, if he was cutting the meat down to sell himself, then he sold it at his own storefront, the butcher's shop. He could easily do small animals at his shop.

Basically, a butcher's shop was where he sold his cuts of meat, some of which was slaughtered on-site. A slaughter house is where the killing and exsanguination took place and you didn't put a storefront on that. These days, the slaughter house is a processing plant and our modern "butcher's shop" might have some or none of the carcasses being broken down. It has instead become a place to slice lunchmeat and create pre-marinated chunks while adding $5/lb for no reason (ok, quite a few butcher's shops still breakdown cuts themselves...I'm being a bit snarky here).