“Hard to Imagine a More Consistent Display of Discrimination”: Judge Hands Victory to Navy Personnel Seeking Religious Exemption from the Jab

Recently, the leftists on the Supreme Court and two turncoats, Kavanaugh and Barret, decided to side with the Biden Administration and allow the military to start discharging personnel, including highly trained SEALs, that refuse to get the jab.

Well, one judge has stepped up and defended liberty on a similar but slightly different issue, protecting the right of those who have religious reasons for not wanting the jab from having to get it because of a government mandate. The Epoch Times, reporting on that decision, notes that:

A preliminary injunction that previously covered 35 Navy SEALs now covers some 4,000 others.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee who entered the original ruling in January, agreed to expand it in part because all members who have applied for religious exemptions “have all been harmed in essentially the same way.”

[…]The new ruling means “anyone in the U.S. Navy whose religious accommodation from the vaccine mandate was denied is now protected from any sort of punishment or involuntary separation, things like that,” said Mike Berry, a lawyer with First Liberty Institute, which represents the plaintiffs in the case.

Describing his decision in the ruling on the case, Justice O’Connor says that:

Here, the potential class members have suffered the “same injury,” arising from violations of their constitutional rights. Each has submitted a religious accommodation request, and each has had his request denied, delayed, or dismissed on appeal. Exactly zero requests have been granted. And while Defendants encourage this Court to disregard the data, it is hard to imagine a more consistent display of discrimination. As previously explained in this Court’s preliminary injunction order, Plaintiffs have suffered the serious injury of infringement of their religious liberty rights under RFRA and the First Amendment. 

[…]Plaintiffs and potential class members have provided evidence of sincerity in the process of applying for religious accommodation. As part of the Navy’s accommodation process, applicants must interview with a chaplain, who completes both a checklist and memorandum attesting to the “sincerity” of the applicant’s beliefs. See ECF No. 62. In short, everyone eligible for the class has submitted a religious accommodation request, and no one may submit that request without a chaplain’s memorandum attesting to the applicant’s sincerity. Thus, all potential class members have carried their (light) burden of demonstrating their religious beliefs are sincere. 

In other words, those seeking a religious exemption have demonstrated the sincerity of their religious beliefs yet the government, in refusing to grant any exemptions, hasn’t taken those religious beliefs sincerely and indeed might even be discriminating against them.

Thus, relief is both necessary and proper. Stopping religious discrimination is a noble goal and, according at least to Judge O’Connor, that religious discrimination is what was happening here.

Now, what remains to be seen is whether O’Connor’s decision will stand or if an appeals court, and then potentially the Supreme Court, will pick up the case. If so, the plaintiff class, the religious members of the Navy, might face an uphill battle given how Kavanaugh and Barrett ruled on the last jab case.

By: Gen Z Conservative, editor of GenZConservative.com. Follow me on Parler and Gettr.