Again I go back to the Scientology case because that is one of the few that a church was held liable. In it the court wrote this:
Substantial evidence supports the conclusion Scientology encouraged Wollersheim to “disconnect” from family members, including his wife and parents. Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the conclusion Scientology has a general policy of encouraging members to “disconnect” from non-Scientologists who oppose Scientology or express reservations about its teachings.
The first question is whether the “disconnect” policy qualifies as a “religious practice” of Scientology. The trial court did not grant summary adjudication on this factual issue. Nonetheless, we find the evidence supported the conclusion disconnect is a “religious practice.” “Disconnect” is similar in purpose and effect to the “shunning” practiced by Jehovah's Witnesses and Mennonites, among others. It also shares some attributes with the remote monasteries common to many other religions. All of these practices serve to isolate members from those, including family members, who might weaken their adherence to the religion. Courts have held these policies qualify as “religious practices” of other religions. (See, e.g., Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of New York, supra, 819 F.2d 875, 879–880; Rasmussen v. Bennett (Mont.1987) 741 P.2d 755 [church statements condemning plaintiffs' conduct and calling for shunning were privileged under the First Amendment].) We see no justification for treating Scientology's “disconnect” policy differently and thus hold it is a “religious practice.”
We recognize the “shunning” cases have involved claims brought by former church members whom other family members were ordered to shun. The instant case, in contrast, involves a cause of action brought by a former church member ordered to shun the rest of his family not the other way around. In the circumstances of this case this is a distinction without a difference. Here appellant caused Wollersheim to isolate himself from his parents, wife and other family members even though appellant had reason to know it would inflict serious emotional injury on him. The injury to him and to the family was just as severe as if his family had “shunned” him.
And again speaking on coercion. Everyone experiences coercion. Governments coerce people to obey laws and pay taxes with the fear of being put into prison or being levied a fine. Parents coerce children in requiring them to obey their parents lest they get punished. An employer coerces an employee to do their job or they won't be paid and fired. Coercion is a normal part of everyday life.
But the distinction that the California court in the Scientology case found was not just that one would be shunned but that the Church of Scientology went a step further. The emotional pain suffered by shunning of a disfellowshipped person within JWs is certainly severe but it is a byproduct of the shunning. The Scientology church intentionally goes after the person, they purposefully use every means to destroy a person, politically, psychologically and financially, that is their intent to do so. The court recognized that a byproduct of shunning of people not conducting business with an establishment owned by a former member may be a byproduct of shunning, but the intentional enforcement of the church telling people that they must quit working for them, stop shopping with them and not honoring legal contracts is not the same thing. The church also heard that the church would have people go to the police and make false police reports against their former member. Again the court made a distinction between a byproduct of the shunning and the intentional destruction of someone's means of life and psychological wellbeing.