Going by only the sketchy facts published here, although I agree with the learned judgement that the two rights are distinct, I think it was wrong to stop the organisation. Basically everyone has a right to the treatment of their choice. Whether we believe the religious angle or not, the fact remains that many physiological illnesses have psychological roots. Blood pressure, cardiac ailments, diabetes, killer diseases all, can be well controlled by changes in mental attitude. Nothing in the article explains what motivation the plaintiff had in approaching the courts. Based on the sketchy information, it seems too harsh for the courts to have stopped the organisation.
