Also you have to remember to sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress the act must be deliberate and the conduct must shock the normal senses of the community. Requiring a person not to speak to someone is not something that shocks the senses of society. People dont talk to others all the time. Even the claim that someone requires someone else not to speak to someone happens regularly even. There are cases outside of JWs that again excommunication or shunning doesnt rise to the level of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Posts by JC323
-
224How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis 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.
-
-
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis 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.
-
-
JC323
Yes you are correct that in the Paul case the court did not pass judgement. It is because as you quoted that allowing a civil suit would have the same effect as prohibiting the act. As it would be a violation to prohibit a religious activity without q compelling governmental interest would be a violation of the constitution.
While yes the case in Paul did not include family. But the case in Anderson did involve family where the court in that case came to the same conclusion and if I remember correctly referenced the Paul case.
-
49
Dilemma of Shunning Policy
by Drearyweather inapologies 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.
-
-
JC323
Also even if you can claim a minor being baptized when they do become the age of majority and still go to meetings they have confirmed it.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis 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.
-
-
JC323
Actually if you read the Paul case fully. The reason why Paul disassociated herself was because her parents were disfellowshipped, she disagreed with the decision and was warned not to speak about her disagreement, she then disassociated herself. Same as in the scientology case, the man disassociated himself from his church.
The church in the paul case heard how people avoided to talk to her or was asked to leave a tuperwear party because of her status. That is what caused the suit. Pretty much met everyone of your conditions.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis 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.
-
-
JC323
The court actually differentiated of what scientology does and the actions of JWs. It highlights that the Paul decision is accurate. It further highlights that a requirement to discontinue from communicating with people is valid. It even highlights that churches teach that if you dont follow our instructions you will be dammed for all eternity. The court said that could be construed as coercive but there is a reasonable amount that every church experiences.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis 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.
-
-
JC323
You have to read the full decision. It speaks as to what constitutes a coercive environment.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis 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.
-
-
JC323
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.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis 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.
-
-
JC323
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.
-
224
How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
by Bad_Wolf inthis 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.
-
-
JC323
Church of Scientology lawsuit. California supreme court.
-
2
Oh Brother, another reason for pompous JWs to file a lawsuit
by ShirleyW ini 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..
-
-
JC323
The lawsuits happen all the time. The labor law states that an employer must provide reasonable accommodations for the practice of an employees religion.