This court is unwilling to declare that there is a fundamental right to consume the food of one's choice without first being presented with significantly more developed arguments on both sides of the issue."...As if to show how pissed he was at being questioned, he said his decision translates further that "no, Plaintiffs to not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;The ruling came in the context of a ban on unpasteurized milk, which many people prefer for health reasons (reasons I do not agree with, but then again, I drink minimal amounts of milk).
"no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;"
And in a kind of exclamation point, he added this to his list of no-nos: "no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice..."
The ruling seems to imply that if you want to grow a cabbage for your own nutrition, you can do that, provided the government has not seen fit to ban growing a cabbage for home consumption.
I was under the impression that our rights work differently, that we have the right to do pretty much as we pleased unless the government had at least moderately compelling reasons to take away those rights. Apparently, I was wrong.