The following article was written by Zachary Stieber and was published by Epoch Times on October 12, 2021.

It reports on a recent court ruling issued by a federal judge giving injunction to 17 New York State health care workers who objected to taking the COVID vaccine due to religious reasons. The ruling states, “There is no adequate explanation from defendants about why the ‘reasonable accommodation’ that must be extended to a medically exempt health care worker under 2.61efn_note]The Judge was referring to the New York Codes, Rules and Regulation Volume A, Title 10, Section 2.61 Prevention of COVID-19 transmission by covered entities, see ^[1]https://regs.health.ny.gov/volume-title-10/content/section-261-prevention-covid-19-transmission-covered-entities could not similarly be extended to a healthcare worker with a sincere religious objection”.

Moreover, the issuing judge, US District Judge David Hurd says that the principal issue is whether the state’s COVID vaccine mandates “conflicts with plaintiff’s and other individual’s federally protected right to seek religious accommodation from their individual employers”. Hurd adds, “The answer to this question is clearly yes. Plaintiffs have established that 2.61 conflicts with longstanding federal protections for religious beliefs and that they and others will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief”.

This new ruling is a direct contrast to an earlier one saying that New York City has “rational justifications” to implement a COVID vaccine mandate.

To read the actual court ruling released by Hurd, see https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21083800-hurd-order-on-vaccine-mandate.

Editor’s Note: This court ruling is important because it upholds a person’s constitutional right to practice their religion. This provides us with the hope that the courts have not yet been fully corrupted, and that there are individuals who are still objective and who are not afraid of the consequences for standing up for the truth.

Moreover, this Epoch Times article shows us that there is no consensus about the legal (and scientific) validity of the COVID vaccines even within the courts. Why is mainstream media only reporting those court decisions that are favorable to the vaccine agenda? Isn’t this the same thing they did to health experts proposing alternative solutions to the pandemic?

It is clear now that the mainstream media is manufacturing support for the vaccines. They are not impartial, as most people think [also see Trusted News Initiative or Corrupted News Initiative? Mission: Systematic censorship of the world’s top public health experts, Another media insider reveals how network uses corrupt practices to promote COVID vaccines and fake news, Mainstream media spinning news about Delta cases to sell vaccines to unvaccinated, Mass vaccination programs are failing, mainstream media attempt to misinform people]. It is also clear that censorship is a potent tool for manipulation. Without news on this development, people might think that religious exemptions have been subsumed under health emergencies.

But no, most constitutions are explicit. There is no law, no policy that could suspend a person’s right to practice religion. [Also read GUIDEBOOK TO END LOCKDOWNS NOW: An Executive Summary by Nicanor Perlas, Scottish court rules church lockdown unlawful, Supreme Court says California cannot restrict religious household gatherings.]

Read Original Article