No. Chenier didn't request it for only when priests go rogue, he requested to be able to do it whenever which would equate to a warrior being denied by game mechanics to recruit a unit. Priests are like the equivalent of royals in that they can't be banned.
Royals can't be banned... sure. That's kinda how elders can't be removed by lower-ranking elders. I'm not sure what your point is. The ban parallel is fully adequate. And heck, you can also exile royals to prevent them from recruiting. You can also refuse to give them estates so they lack the gold to recruit... Stuff their city with militia if they are lords so that they don't get an income to recruit. Is a trader's IR being violated if nobody puts up sale offers? Is a newbie's IR being violated when his realm has too much peace to allow him to gain enough h/p to pick the subclasses he wants?
I think there is a gross exageration of what the IRs actually cover. The IRs are there to prevent people from telling others how to play. They aren't there to force people to make every path equally viable or attainable.
Telling people not to become warriors is against the IRs, but failing to provide people with income or RCs is not.
Telling people not to become traders is against the IRs, but failing to provide trade offers is not.
Telling people not to recruit from archers is against the IRs, but failing to provide archer RCs is not.
Telling people not to play priests is against the IRs, but providing them a religion to be a priest is should not be considered as such. They can always found their own religion or pick another religion if they want to be a priest.
The rights offer a protection to the individuals, not a duty to the collectivity to heed to every little desire of said individuals.