Did you ever sell something, issue a receipt to the buyer and then someone comes along and offers you more than the first guy?
Bad timing - too bad for you- the deal is done and he has his receipt. Thats the power of a little piece of signed, dated paper.
I don't think this analogy holds up. First, I don't think that one's relationship with a congregation/WTS is governed by contract law. But even if it is, principles of contract law requrie you to communicate something with your counterparty before it's effective. The traditional rule is called the mailbox or posting rule, which makes something in writing effective when you place it in the mail to another party; not when you write it yourself intend for it to secretly have effect.
Shunning lawsuits definitely fall under tort law, not contract law, where the defendant's state of mind is relevant. In general, someone has to know about something in order to be liable for it under the law; you certainly will have to prove that a church knew you withdrew if you want to hold them liabie for wrongly treating you like a member. If no mental state is needed, that is called strict liability, which almost never applies. Products liability and dangerous animals are the most notable exceptions where someone can be held strictly liable. Imagine if you never told your boss what religion you belong to or did anything to indicate such, and then tried to sue your boss for religious discrimination for making you work on your religious holiday. You would never be able to hold your employer strictly liable for not knowing your religion. That's a more sensible analogy.
I forgot to respond to your querey about damages. The Human rights commission in my jurisdiction does indeed award damages, for legal costs as well as actual expenses incurred, and damages for injures/ distress suffered.
I assumed you were in the US, as that is really the only place that imposes extensive tort liability where this would even be a discussion. Are you referring to the human rights commission of a US state? If so, those enforce specific statutory schemes in awarding damages, not general human rights principles.
