The language which I found to be interesting:
...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;
"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..."
Well! That settles it, in Dane County.
Apparently the case was not well-argued by the farmers, who used Roe as an example of 'doing ...with your own body....' I'm not convinced by that analogy.
It seems Judge Fiedler is saying it's not a "fundamental right," but rather a right granted us by the state.
Phrased that way, it's a far more interesting discussion. Does the State have the right to prevent one from eating one's own chickens? Their eggs? One's own cows or pigs?
A lot of Amish folks will be surprised--and very upset--by this decision.
HT: AOSHQ via FoodRenegade
Post a Comment