My interpretation--
"financially obliged to continue the business relationship for the present" --this statement makes it a conscience matter, determined by the non DF'd/DA'd party's sense of financial obligation. Notice it doesn't necessarily require the two parties to be "financially obliged" to each other but only "financially obliged to the continue the business relationship". There are numerous reasons to feel this way i.e. to pay your monthly bills, child support, to help fund the Worldwide Work. There could be a sense of financial obligation because of the amount of time and money invested into the company or important relationships with clients that may affect the company bottom line--No one can define this but the employee and employer.
So according to the article above, the 2 reasons in which one can remain in a business relationship with a DF'd/DA'd person is 1) contractually obliged or 2) financially obliged (for whatever reason). Only the person (or head of thier household) the other person in the business relationship can determine when they are no longer financially obliged. I may feel financially obliged to work for your company for the rest of my life, someone else may not. You may feel financially obliged to keep a DF'd employee on staff because you've invested a lot in them, someone else may not.
Anyone else pursuing this is imposing their own conscience on the matter and we are informed that, "those of us with a more restrictive conscience should not be critical of others, insisting that all view matters of conscience just as they do (Romans 14:10) Really, the conscience is best used as an internal judge, not a license to judge others. Remember Jesus' words: "Stop judging that you may not be judged."(Mathew 7:1) All in the congregation want to avoid making an issue of personal matters of conscience. Instead, we seek ways to promote love and unity, building one another up, not tearing one another down." Romans 14 :19---lv chap. 2 pp. 20-21 par. 16.
I agree with Zound that the wording "for the present" is there to imply or pressure a person to feel that as soon as they are no longer "contractually or financially obliged" they need to terminate the business relationship. Still there is no set timeframe stated nor does it forbid.There is a lot of implying going on but the only consequence they set forth is "you certainly would now have a different attitude toward the disfellowshiped individual."
The way the section is worded, it would require alot for the WT to be held responsible for anything legally, but the local elders or any persons imposing their conscience, that another story. They are taking it to another level.
I know a C.O.B.E. that currently employ a couple of DF'd persons. One has been DF'd for about 10 years and the is DF'd for the second time. It's got to be a conscience matter or he we not still be considered a fine example for the congregation he presides over.
