In the US you can look at a very recent case. The decision was ruled on 7/11/2018.
Hubbard v J Message Group Corp.,
The corporation was the legal entity of a religious organization that promoted the belief of reincarnation and the teaching of their leader, Mr. Alexander.
It is a very complicated set of circumstances including the ostracization of church members, the publishing of those members names and the statements that some of those members were "porn stars." Very complicated but very interesting reading.
The US District Court for the District of New Mexico ruled that the practices that were being sued over were, in fact, religious beliefs. In its decision, it made the following statement, about whether the matter could be resolved under the neutral principle of law, which the US Constitution and US Supreme Court require.
Broadly speaking, Plaintiff seeks damages arising from two forms of allegedly tortious conduct: Defendants' statements about the nature of Plaintiff's soul, which were disseminated to the membership of JMGC/CoW; and Defendants' efforts to ostracize her from the organization and its members, including her then-fiancée, now husband, Mr. Kyzer. Plaintiff claims that this is purely a secular dispute that can be resolved through the application of neutral principles of law without “doctrinal or organizational entanglement.” (Doc. 32 at 3.) The Court does not agree.
The court then took these two points separately, the defamation and the ostracizing of former members. This is what the court said on the latter in the longer discussion.
second principle relevant to the facts and circumstances
here, is that the First Amendment bars tort claims
that arise from circumstances in which a plaintiff has
been ostracized from a religious community—a practice
known, formally in some religions, as “shunning.” See
Paul, 819 F.2d at 876-77 (recognizing that “shunning” is
a form of ostracism that purportedly has its roots in early
Christianity, and which is practiced by various religious
groups, including the Amish, Mennonites, and Jehovah's
Witnesses). In these cases, too, courts have concluded that
even where the religious organization engages in conduct
that, in other circumstances could be actionable under
tort law, the First Amendment does not permit judicial
interference in what are, essentially, ecclesiastical disputes
concerning membership in religious organizations.
For example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
concluded, in Paul, that to allow a plaintiff to pursue tort
claims against a religious organization based on shunning
practices would effectively abridge the free exercise of
religion guaranteed by the First Amendment. 15 819
F.2d at 880. The plaintiff in Paul, a former member
of the Jehovah's Witnesses, having been told by a
close childhood friend: “I can't speak to you. You
are disfellowshipped.”; having received similar treatment
from other friends; and having been ostracized at a
tupperware party at the home of a Jehovah's witness
because “the Elders” had instructed members of the faith
not to speak to her, filed tort claims against the corporate
arms of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Id. at 876-77. In her lawsuit, the plaintiff claimed that
defendants had engaged in intentional conduct causing
emotional distress, intentional conduct causing alienation
of affections, and intentional conduct causing harm to
reputation. Id. at 879. In affirming the dismissal of
plaintiff's lawsuit, the Paul court concluded that the
imposition of tort damages on the Jehovah's Witnesses
for engaging in the religious practice of shunning would
essentially criminalize and force the church to forego the
practice, thereby imposing a direct burden on religion.
Id. at 880-81 (citing Langford v. United States, 101 U.S.
341, 345, 25 L.Ed. 1010 (1879) for the proposition that
“the very essence of a tort is that it is an unlawful
act” (alteration omitted) ).
*12 In another case involving “disfellowship” or
“shunning,” the Supreme Court of Alaska concluded
that the First Amendment barred a plaintiff's claims
of negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and defamation, among
others. Sands v. Living Word Fellowship, 34 P.3d 955, 956,
959 (Alaska 2001). In Sands, the plaintiff shot himself in
an attempted suicide after a church (Living Word) and two
of its members (the parents of the plaintiff's girlfriend),
instructed the congregants of Living Word as well as
the congregants of eight other churches to “shun” the
members of Wasilla Ministries—the church to which the
plaintiff belonged. Id. at 957. Among other things, the
defendants said that Wasilla Ministries was a cult, and
that the plaintiff was a “cult recruiter.” Id. Underlying
this feud was a disagreement on parental authority—
apparently related to the relationship between the plaintiff
and his girlfriend, and biblical interpretation. Id. Two
local newspapers published the defendants' allegations
against Wasilla Ministries. Id. These events caused the
plaintiff great emotional distress and led him to attempt
suicide which attempt, though unsuccessful, rendered him
paralyzed from the chest down. Id.
The Sands court reasoned that the defendants' “shunning”
directive to its congregation and that of eight other
churches was religiously based, and was motivated by
religion. Id. at 959. Likewise, the court reasoned that
defendant's statements that the plaintiff was a cult
recruiter, and the church of which he was a member
was a cult were statements reflecting religious beliefs and
opinions. Id. at 960. Because the plaintiff's claims arose
out of an essentially religious dispute, the Sands court
accordingly concluded that the claims were barred by the
First Amendment. Id. at 959-60.
