This was the portion that may apply to your situation. Good luck. ________ 3] The third theory rules that shunning or excommunication can be -- by itself -- tortious conduct subject to liability. This theory assumes that the state interest in preventing shunning and excommunication is strong enough to allow state interference in all of these decisions. The first case to adopt this posture, Bear v. Reformed Mennonite Church106 advanced this argument in its simplest form: In our opinion, the complaint, in Counts I and II, raises issues that the 'shunning' practice of appellee church107 and the conduct of the individuals may be an excessive interference within areas of 'paramount state concern,' i.e. the maintenance of marriage and family relationship, alienation of affection, and the tortious interference with a business relationship, which the courts of this Commonwealth may have authority to regulate, even in light of the 'Establishment' and 'Free Exercise' clauses of the First Amendment. Other courts have also agreed with this basic approach, and ruled that shunning and excommunication are actionable conduct even when it is unaccompanied by any other activity.108 This approach has the potential in it to vastly limit the scope of religion's right to self-associate and exclude others. If in fact, as Bear rules, the Constitution provides no protection from tort law liability for interfering with a spousal relationship when a minister announces that associating with a particular person -- even by that person's spouse -- violated the rules of the Faith, tort law has accomplished what no other set of legal rules can do under the Constitution. It has prevented a Faith from announcing its opinion on the ethical conduct of a portion of society, even when the faith makes no attempts to coerce compliance with its doctrines or punish adherents of other faiths.