Matthew 5: 22 `But I tell you this. Anyone who is angry with his brother without having a good reason will be judged in court. Anyone who says wrong things to his brother will be judged for it in the big court. Anyone who says "You fool!" will be judged to go into hell fire.
1 Timothy 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pears, or costly array;
1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I write to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of [Christian] brother if he is known to be guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, or is a person with a foul tongue [railing, abusing, reviling, slandering], or is a drunkard or a swindler or a robber. [No} you must not so much as eat with such a person.
Will you be disfellowshipped for calling your brother "a fool"? How about if, as a woman, you braid your hair, wear gold or pearls?
What is the reasoning not to disfellowship? The scripture in Matthew makes it clear that you are facing a supreme judgment for such a "sin". Timothy states that woman should not "make themselves up" (woman who are Mennonites or Hutterites take this very seriously).
So what is the reasoning for disfellowshipping those who eat a meal with a disfellowshipped person?
This was the reason I was expelled. I ate in a public restaurant with my sister (who was living with me) who was disassociated. She was no longer calling herself "a sister". She was no longer a Jehovah's Witness. I said this to my JC. They stated that I shouldn't eat in a public place with her. I asked "can we eat together at home?". They looked at me like I was stupid and said "of course, just not publicly". Then I said, "but the scripture doesn't make reference to either a public or private meal". I guess I wasn't repentant enough.
Why is the exaggeration, stressing to watch your association with hypocritical brothers/sisters who may be leading a double life, used as a means to expel from the congregation - when other scriptures that use the same type of exaggeration to stress their point, is not taken so "literally"?