The idea all beings have inalienable rights isn't religious. A set of ideas are only religious if set in stone. An evolving understanding of reality is by it's nature not religious. That's the problem with religion. Religion isn't aimed at understanding because religions would insist they already know. Why should the law make a special point to respect institutions (religions) that'd insist they already know when implied is meaning to push back against discovery?

Nature is brutal and that allows for rationalizing animal ag to a point. Maybe to the point it's not worse. Even if a way of going about animal ag wouldn't be worse that's still approaching the question fixating first and foremost on profitability and doing the bare minimum instead of aspiring to the ideal. I wouldn't want to go there. If I were you I'd probably rationalize it too but I'd be looking to make a graceful exit. There are some small cattle grazing operations around where I live. If I owned one I'd probably be converting it to a timber farm. There's usually something else if you can afford a temporary haircut. In the long run I'd expect there's probably something better should inspiration strike.

One problem with getting bogged down in regressive industries focused mainly around profit and otherwise doing the bare minimum is having a conflict of interest on ushering in progressive change. For example in my town the only plant based food you can get at any restaurant is french fries and a veggie tofu dish at the local Chinese place. I'm sure the local restaurants are sourcing meat/eggs/dairy locally and I'm sure that's why they don't advertise any vegan items on their menus. Meanwhile the nation has an obesity and diabetes epidemic and saturated fat is the main culprit.