Context reveals part of the logic here, that being that the plaintiffs wished to drink raw milk, and the state insists that no one may do this. Pasteurization is mandatory. Raw milk can carry a list of diseases and bacteria, and bovine tuberculosis is contagious. To that end, requiring pasturization to protect the public health makes sense.
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;
"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..."
As to the rest of the position, this looks like a classic case of Wily Coyote running off the edge of a high cliff without noticing his error. At least not immediately.