because he was shunned by his customers?.
The judicial review is because elders do not follow rules carefully as outlined by service dept .
Mr. Ngam argues that there is no legal relationship between church and member in this case, only non justiciable religious obligation between church and member exists.
because he was shunned by his customers?.
He also said... I will later post
Or you could just listen to that question that justice Maldavier posed to Mr. Gnam that goes with what Mr Gnam "also said". ( On the already posted vid of the appeals hearing.)
because he was shunned by his customers?.
so if the elders sneakily told publishers not to do business with mrwall
That's a horse of a different color. But can such a case be heard, and can it be adjudicated as a judicial review?
then they crossed the line they did not follow there own rules this would be part of the judicial review as a citizen not religious.
Maybe not. The case law is in dispute and Court has not decided. Mr Gnam argued that respondent could bring the issue up as a tort, etc.
because he was shunned by his customers?.
spoonfed nomore, has uploaded a video on his youtube site, of exjw activists protesting inside a kingdom hall during this sunday meeting.
several people speak out.
if some one can put a link on here that would be awesome, i can’t figure out how to do it with an i phone.
because he was shunned by his customers?.
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.
because he was shunned by his customers?.
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."
spoonfed nomore, has uploaded a video on his youtube site, of exjw activists protesting inside a kingdom hall during this sunday meeting.
several people speak out.
if some one can put a link on here that would be awesome, i can’t figure out how to do it with an i phone.
they again spoke fairly calmly
It is not words that people fear. With a climate of crazy people going around shooting these days, an innocent person cannot predict what a person disrupting church services is going to do next.
spoonfed nomore, has uploaded a video on his youtube site, of exjw activists protesting inside a kingdom hall during this sunday meeting.
several people speak out.
if some one can put a link on here that would be awesome, i can’t figure out how to do it with an i phone.
It is not only that disrupting church services, peaceful assembly is not fair and proper but also how innocent people attending the services are going to react and be affected. The intrusion startles people and with all the crazy people going around shooting, people don't know what to expect from the intruders. The intruders may know that all they want is to have their say but someone attending the services don't know that and could panic and fear for their life resulting in the intruders actually harming innocent people. A close up of the vid shows an elderly man that does not seem to be an elder, asking for the name of one of the intruders. The elderly man did not appear to be an elder of the congregation but seemed emotionally affected-suppose he then died from a heart attack-and who knows how many other people were were also affected. A reasonable person does not go inside a church and disrupt religious services, emotional people do. Such action could cause harm to innocent people and also puts the life of the intruder in danger, anything can happen.--Very irresponsible.
because he was shunned by his customers?.
I speculate that Respondent's attorney persuaded the majority of the justices to have a trial Court review the "proceedure" JC's follow and ultimately impose a standard of natural justice and require JC to follow its own rules.
40 years or so ago, it was an open an shut case in favor of religious freedom but not today; there is a different ambience in the Courts towards religion.
