Navy Says Destroyer Can’t Deploy Because Captain Is “Unjabbed”

The US Navy claims their warship can’t deploy because it is commanded by an officer they cannot fire as punishment for not taking the Covid-19 inoculation, reported NavyTimes.

Reports indicate that recent federal court filings are calling the standoff a “manifest national security concern.”

This issue comes after a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for Florida alleging service members’ rights are being infringed upon by the COVID inoculation mandates due to conflicts they present with sincerely held religious beliefs of the individuals being forced into the shot.

An order issued last month by Judge Steven D. Merryday banned the Navy and Marine Corps from taking any disciplinary action against both the unnamed Navy warship commander and a Marine Corps lieutenant colonel for refusing the Covid-19 jab.

It came as no surprise to many that this ruling created outrage among many in the left-wing. Objective journalists from Slate Magazine worked overtime to address the harrowing incident, hysterically drafting a piece titled “An Anti-Vax Judge Is Preventing the Navy From Deploying a Warship.” Perhaps more unhinged that the writer of the piece is the alleged attitudes of fellow service members; it describes tales of admirals who are “desperate to remove an insubordinate anti-vaxxer from command of a guided-missile destroyer.”

The after mentioned injunction by Merryday, according to a February 28 filing by the government, poses “an extraordinary intrusion upon the inner workings of the military.”

Actors involved with the United States Navy consequently decided that continuing their attempts to force inoculations upon a long-serving commander was more important than deploying the troop-ready ship in order to preserve national security. Statements in court filings corroborated this.

“With respect to Navy Commander, the Navy has lost confidence in his ability to lead and will not deploy the warship with him in command,” the filing states.

Merryday importantly pointed out that the suit was launched in order to protect the religious freedom of military servicemembers rather than debate whether or not it maximizes the health and safety of servicemembers.

“The defendants might prefer to argue that question, but the plaintiffs and the court address only the question presented in the RFRA claim,” Merryday’s order states. Rather, the question is whether forcibly inoculating US service members in spite of their personal religious objections is “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.”

“RFRA establishes that explicit test and places the burden of proof on the government,” Merryday wrote. “Proving the obvious, that vaccination is best for ‘the force’ and necessary for ‘the force,’ fails to satisfy the ‘to the person’ test require by RFRA. The military designs to avoid the ‘to the person’ test, but the statute is unflinching.”

The case remains ongoing.