"Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right...

[FarmerChick]

the plaintiffs are the owners of the farm, the LLC and the so-called owners of the shared interests etc.


it is not saying for any second that a person owning a single cow can not drink their own raw milk....it is even not implying that in any way shape or form


it is all about legality of selling to members etc.
the legality of boarding cows and then are 'they under a diary farm regulation'
and the legality of having a Retail Store license to 'sell raw milk' to members who are so-called owners etc etc

Oh brother.
We know that. We also know that all of us do face the real risk of losing our freedoms as we have them.
Our choice. Not some judges choice.

geez you post stuff to make it sound like it is something else entirely.

this is all about corporation and its legal sales etc. from state laws.

you can't just 'use any old sentence' and throw it out there to try to make your own personal meaning from it.

it is all about the corporation following the legal laws set in that state and the store's laws about selling products etc in that state.

I do agree, tho, alot of choices are being narrowed by laws. But your post implied alot more than what this case was all about.

When the judge said his statments it was all about this corporation's case. Don't twist it into something it is not. Alot of times I see that on this board.

Sure state laws are a pain in the arse for many. If you want the right to 'do business' you follow the state laws. There are tons of laws I don't like, lol, but they are the law. So this 'farm corp.' and its 'owner members' etc. must follow the legal laws in place. Simple as that.

 

[Lady Henevere]

The judge's opinion said the plaintiffs cannot support their case because their arguments "are extremely underdeveloped."

"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."

Poorly developed cases usually result in bad law. Look on the bright side: It's probably better that this judge declined to declare new rights,* rather than making a ruling that is unsupported and then having it overturned by a higher court -- which would have set a precedent other courts would have to follow.

(*By "declare new rights" I mean not that the rights are new, but that they haven't been legally established yet.)

JMHO.

 

[Bubblingbrooks]

the plaintiffs are the owners of the farm, the LLC and the so-called owners of the shared interests etc.


it is not saying for any second that a person owning a single cow can not drink their own raw milk....it is even not implying that in any way shape or form


it is all about legality of selling to members etc.
the legality of boarding cows and then are 'they under a diary farm regulation'
and the legality of having a Retail Store license to 'sell raw milk' to members who are so-called owners etc etc

Oh brother.
We know that. We also know that all of us do face the real risk of losing our freedoms as we have them.
Our choice. Not some judges choice.

geez you post stuff to make it sound like it is something else entirely.

this is all about corporation and its legal sales etc. from state laws.

you can't just 'use any old sentence' and throw it out there to try to make your own personal meaning from it.

it is all about the corporation following the legal laws set in that state and the store's laws about selling products etc in that state.

I do agree, tho, alot of choices are being narrowed by laws. But your post implied alot more than what this case was all about.

When the judge said his statments it was all about this corporation's case. Don't twist it into something it is not. Alot of times I see that on this board.

Sure state laws are a pain in the arse for many. If you want the right to 'do business' you follow the state laws. There are tons of laws I don't like, lol, but they are the law. So this 'farm corp.' and its 'owner members' etc. must follow the legal laws in place. Simple as that.

The title specifies the word Plaintiff. I have no idea how that can be misconstrued. A judge told the plaintiff in the case, etc.

 

[FarmerChick]

Do you know who the plaintiffs are?

Farm to Consumer Legal Denfense Fund, Grassway Organics Farm Store LLC, Grassway Organics Association and Kay and Wayne Craig, doing business as, Grassway Farms.


So when the judge says---Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice..."


They don't ---according to the laws. The laws of doing business must be followed. If the business is breaking laws etc. then the laws stand.

You make it sound like this is a blow to individual personal freedom. It is not. It is a coroporation doing business who must follow laws that are currently in place.
Laws have been battling over the raw milk sales etc for a long time now. This is nothing new. And to boot alot of illness can be directed back to this business and its product.

The legality of it is not something new at all. Many of these types of cases are out there.


Sure our freedoms are being more narrow constantly. But this case is all about a business, selling raw milk as a business and certain laws in effect must be followed.

Corporations can not 'do what they want'. Thank goodness they can't. So if you are a farm business, you must follow current laws that are in effect for your state.

So a person, in the state of WI, can own a cow, milk it and drink the raw milk. That was never in question.



if you don't like the current laws, put all your effort into changing them. best one can do.