this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
Also a civil court requires a suit to include something that would provide relief to the person who is suing. This relief must be reasonable and force able to have an effect. If there isnt then it must be dismissed for failing to state a claim.
The courts have also ruled in the past that a civil judgement would be similar to a goverment in acting a law. Thst if the civil suit would prevent the free excercise of religion then the civil court cannot intervene.
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
A suit on freedom of speech, is not a legitimate lawsuit. You can only sue the goverment for a violation such as that. The bill of rights only prevents the goverment from infringing on rights.
After the florida school shooting major stores chose to change their stance on selling certain types of guns to certain people. This was done even though no change in the law. One cannot sue the store because they arent being sold a gun, it is up to the store to enforce their policy.
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
Church of Scientology lawsuit. California supreme court.
i guess some of you have heard that a woman that worked at a hotel and was forced to work on sunday's has now filed suit and won some major moolah.
so, how long before the pompous dubs who work on mtg night will follow suit and collect big bucks, i honestly think that a few have tried this before, but now that this woman and her bogus religion almost as crazy as dubs got a shitload of money, there will be many more lawsuits to come from a certain cult that either knock-knock on your door every weekend or sit in a subway station and just sit there and gossip about the other folks in the cong or steady dial up stuff on their phones..
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
Then sue Watchtower over human rights.
apologies if this topic has been discussed earlier.. i was thinking of whether demanding for a ban on shunning policy would be beneficial for the larger society.
following are some things that we need to remember while advocating the issue:.
1. shunning is not limited to jw's and for many americans, it is not that controversial as it seems.. 2. jw shunning is not a dark secret policy.
It is actually funny. From a legal standpoint, the California Supreme Court ruled that because a member of the Church of Scientology was so far up in their organization and knew what the church would do if he left, that allowed him to sue. The court ruled that if a new member or someone lower in the structure sued they would have found the opposite.
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
Again you cannot sue in civil court without asking for money. that is the way that civil courts are able to bring relief.
in Malloy vs Watchtower just this month the 6th circuit court of appeals wrote this.
To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
TD this discussion is about the legal environment which is what I am speaking about. legally the courts.
Poopie- Civil suits require that you sue for money. a civil court is there to provide relief to make you whole. At least in the US you have to sue for money otherwise it would be dismissed for failing to state a claim.
Stephanie: Civil rights are only protected when the government is attempting to curtail a civil right. In the case that you referenced the NAACP sued the State of Alabama because the state was attempting to stop their association, not a private organization. The state was doing it with their state or governmental powers.
There are plenty of cases also that speaks to your assertion that if only the courts can see if someone is being Disfellowshipped because they were associating with a disfellowshipped person. In fact, that is what the claim was in the Canadian case was involved. There are also cases in the US where one church disfellowshipped another religious congregation as a whole and forbade any of their members from speaking with the members of the other church. This lead to one member attempting suicide because he was in love with a girl from the other church. The parents attempted to sue but the Alaskan supreme court ruled that it is not their place to interfere with religious law. In the Scientology case the California supreme court ruled that a church could advise it's members to stop speaking to people under penalty of discipline.
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
European law may have more on civil rights but also reasons and valuation on civil suits is reduced. For example, the reason the Australian redress scheme max is at 150k or so is because that is about the max one can get in a civil trial.
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
Cassell v Christin Science Board of Directors
Appeals Court of Massachusetts 81Mass.App.Ct 1114 (Unplublisehd Opinion)
No synopsis available at this time
