That was the point of the Judges ruling. He said that the JW disfellowshipping policy was promoting something that is a violation of ones basic human rights. He wasn't talking about forcing anyone to talk to someone if they chose not to, he was talking about your right to choose for yourself who you talk to and the rights of the disfellowshipped person to being treated justly and within the laws of the land rather than by additional laws made up by a religious organization.
0. Have you been able to read the judgment? I hope you don't make conclusions based on a short quotation from a media report. Because...
1. Your words about "rights" is nothing but demagoguery. There is no "right to be treated justly", and the "right to be treated within the laws of the land rather than by additional laws made up by a religious organization" is, dependent on what you mean by it, either not existing, or any claim about it is circular.
2. In a free and pluralistic society, people are free:
- to associate or not associate with anyone;
- to influence how others exercise that right;
- to exercise the said rights jointly, through associations and communities, including strict ones, that may create and enforce their own rules, as far as it doesn't involve violence or other means of coercion.
At this point, it is not clearly established, to say the least, that ostracizing and boycotting constitute unlawful coercion. There are reasons for this. For sure, shunning as practised by the Jehovah's Witnesses often cause pain and suffering. But other forms of boycotting and similar behaviour - not institutional, less organized, less strict, both collective and individual - can have the same effects. So, where to draw the line? Don't forget that it not the role of government and law to protect people against everything causing them distress. And notwithstanding the attempts to deny or minimize that, the issues in question seriously affect fundamental rights like the freedom of speech, association, and conscience, and the right to private life.
That said, I'm not suggesting the recent decision is necessarily wrong. I would like to read and examine it and future decisions before making ultimate conclusions. What I'm cautioning against are oversimplification, tricky arguments, and hasty conclusions not based on careful consideration of facts and arguments. For example, "religious rules are not above the law" is a nonargument because the real question is what exactly "the law" says.