It would actually have to be more than just telling someone not to do business with someone. If that was the case than organizations that call for boycotts of businesses would be liable. It would have to be saying that and adding slander, such as don't do business with that person because he is an adulterer when the person is not. That would be a tort claim.
Does anyone have info on the guy that sued Jw in Canada
by poopie 106 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Fisherman
Let's say that employer and employee were both JW. Employer could not legally fire a df employee and if he did, the courts would have authority over the situation but if the employer was df, it would be a matter of personal decision if employee wanted to quit or not. Could the employer bring the employee to court for not wanting to work for the reason of df? How could the Courts enforce ? How could the Court force Respondent's customers to do business with him in this related case? By adjudicating church practice as secular procedure and imposing rules of secular justice so that church discipline including expulsion measure up to a justiciable standard vs church doctrine judicially reviewable by the Court: Secular standards are standing in a holy place.
(But what if employee still refuses to work for employer? What can the Courts do?)
"Mr. So and So the decision of this JC is to df you but we can't do that based on legal standards that we are forced to follow, on religious grounds you are df but you still a legal member of this church."
"This is to inform the Cong that brother so and so is no longer a spiritual member of this church but legally he still is a member, you must legally continue to view him as a member. There is nothing we can do about it."
-
Fisherman
Mr Wall given notice that his business would be affected. R456
In this case, respondent confessed to sinful conduct establishing guilt but df is not based upon guilt but upon what elders discern is godly repentance as elders determine guided by HS and asking for direction in prayer. Interesting to see how the court can review such JC decision in Canada.
I can understand if the brother disagrees with the elders and believes that he is repentant and should not be df but as a repentant JW he also believes in God's organization, etc.,etc., so how could he possibly turn to Caesar for justice.
-
poopie
judicial review
-
poopie
it's not the disfelowshipping it's the shunning the shunning the shunning the shunimg.
-
search
how could he possibly turn to Caesar for justice.
Should Paul not have appealed to Caesar against his "brothers" (Acts 23:6)?
It is an established Biblical precedent.
-
Ruby456
orphancrow
Business was always protected.
where is this in written form in WTS literature?
-
Ruby456
john Davis
It would actually have to be more than just telling someone not to do business with someone. If that was the case than organizations that call for boycotts of businesses would be liable. It would have to be saying that and adding slander, such as don't do business with that person because he is an adulterer when the person is not. That would be a tort claim.
but Mr Wall was disfellowshipped and the congregation isn't told what he was disfellowshipped for. So in the minds of the congregation who heard the announcement he could have been guilty of more serious things. Everyone at that hall would have known this. The elders ought to have warned him first and given him a period of time so that he could take steps to safeguard his business.
Until orphancrow can show me evidence from the WTS' literature that business relationships with disfellowshipped individuals are allowed I am insisting that in the minds of most JWs will be the injunctions regarding when family members are disfellowshipped and do not live at home - that only in situations of necessary family business individuals are allowed to have very limited dealings with a disfellowshipped family member. Other than this family members must not have any kind of fellowship with a disfellowshipped person. Most JWs will take away from such injunctions against disfellowshipped family members that non family members who are disfellowshipped are not to be associated with at all even for business.
-
OrphanCrow
Ruby: Until orphancrow can show me evidence from the WTS' literature that business relationships with disfellowshipped individuals are allowed
You will note that I had been talking about the "rules" that existed prior to the early 70s and I was curious as to when the rules changed.
I did not make any claim that those rules are the same now and I have no intention ( and I never did) to show you that those rules are the same now. Never did. I never said what you say that I did. You have added your own twist to my words.
However, for the sake of historical accuracy (and it has nothing to do with the present situation concerning disfellowshipping) this quote comes from 1952 and would be the one that dictated the behavior of my father and his generation of JWs and it is the one that explains why the JWs in my congregation from the 60s would still do business with a disfellowshipped person:
***w 52 12/1 p. 735 Questions From Readers***
Is it proper for a Christian witness of Jehovah to have business relationships with one who has been disfellowshiped?—F.G.,California.
The circumstances of each case might influence the answer. Generally speaking, it would be desirable for us to have no contact with disfellowshiped persons, either in business or in social and spiritual ways. If it is possible to make new business connections relative to employer, employee, the acquiring of raw materials or the performance of needed services, and so forth, it would be advisable to do so. However, if circumstances do not allow for this as you continue to make necessary provision for yourself or family in a material way, then you may decide to continue the business contact with a disfellowshiped person. But if you deem this necessary, you must be very careful to see to it that you do not associate with the ousted one and do not discuss spiritual matters with him. Always bear in mind that our spiritual interests are of far greater concern to us than material interests, and follow closely the recommendations of the congregation regarding one who has been disfellowshiped. We safeguard not only our own personal spiritual interests by so doing, but also those of our brothers, and especially those of weaker ones or new ones who might be easily stumbled by our contact with disfellowshiped persons.
Of course the WT encourages JWs not to do business with a disfellowshipped person but the provision was still there to continue to if necessary.
-
Fisherman
Mr. Gnam told the 9 justices that doing business with a df individual is a personal decision (today).