Randy Wall, a real estate agent was "disfellowshipped" from the Highwood Congregation for being drunk on two occasions and allegedly verbally abusing his wife.
As a result, he says his clients refused to do further business with him, so he argued his property and civil rights were affected.
Previously, Simon has made some interesting comments regarding the case
Simon:
I think it's problematic to try and make it into a business-loss argument for two reasons:
First, you simply can't legislate for people to do business with you - they have the right to make their own choices. The only thing that would cover it would be existing breach-of-contract law if someone broke off a business arrangement that was committed to.
Second, I think most people should be aware that the rules within the group are rather strict for people who leave. So if a business depends on the owner being a member of a religious group (which sounds like "affinity marketing") then it should be planned for to reduce that dependency because, well, see the above - there is no way to force people to stay customers and it's a business risk.
It's like the reverse of the gay-wedding-cake situation ... imaging the religious couple decide they don't want to buy a cake from a baker who they disapprove of for some reason. Should they be compelled to buy the cake?
Seriously, it's one thing to complain that something is unfair and that the WTS have too much power and negatively impact people's lives, of course it is and they do. But what is the goal? What should be changed and how? What is the law that can be passed to prevent it? I would press a button and ban religion if I could, but that ain't gonna happen - assume that freedom of religion is not going anywhere, what's the outcome?