Jonty30, it doesn’t surprise me either. If government has the right to tell people what to eat, it also has the right to tell them what NOT to eat. Justice Kagan would no doubt uphold this ruling in an appeal.
Watch it and weep for our country.
This case is NOT about what a person has the right to eat, but what a person has the right to sell. Please don’t read WND & think you are getting an honest report.
This is a summary judgment. That means the facts in the case are in dispute, and must therefor go to trial. The plaintiffs argue they are not selling raw milk. The state says they are, and have denied them a business license. The facts are in dispute, so it needs to go to trial.
That is all this ruling says.