From that point on, I will consider any attempt to convince by speeches, talks or teaching; coercion by implied or actual threat of similar judicial action; or to encourage by private counsel or suggestion any of Jehovah’s Witnesses to treat me differently from any other person that is also not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses to be a serious violation of my civil rights and I may initiate any legal action, civil or criminal that I deem appropriate.
I find this line of reasoning very interesting.
Not only because the way the Witnesses treat DA's and DF'd people violates what Jesus taught: "And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." (Matthew 18:17 ISV) By his own example, Jesus didn't shun gentiles nor tax collectors. He spoke with them, ate with them, cured them and invited one of them to be an apostle. Fact is, the Witnesses go 'beyond what is written' and invalidate Christ's teachings when they shun former Witnesses, because they treat them WORSE than they treat non-believers.
Not only is unscriptural, it's also potentially illegal, as you point out. Because you're being discriminated, not only regarding your previous church fellow members, but you're being discriminated regarding the rest of society. That is a violation of your civil rights. I wonder if this argument could be legally expanded and deepened to support some sort of legal action against the Organization.
In addition, the non-discrimination directives all state that an ‘instruction to
discriminate’ is deemed to constitute ‘discrimination’.44 However, none of the
directives provide a definition as to what is meant by the term. In order to be of any
worth in combating discriminatory practices, it ought not to be confined to merely
dealing with instructions that are mandatory in nature, but should extend to catch
situations where there is an expressed preference or an encouragement to treat
individuals less favourably due to one of the protected grounds. This is an area that
may evolve through the jurisprudence of the courts.
Although the non-discrimination directives do not oblige Member States to use
criminal law to address acts of discrimination, a Framework Decision of the European
Council does oblige all EU Member States to provide for criminal sanctions in relation
to incitement to violence or hatred based on race, colour, descent, religion or belief,
national or ethnic origin, as well as dissemination of racist or xenophobic material
and condonation, denial or trivialisation of genocide, war crimes and crimes against
humanity directed against such groups.45 Member States are also obliged to consider
racist or xenophobic intent as an aggravating circumstance.
Source: "Handbook on European Non-Discrimination Law", page 33, published by the European union Agency for Fundamental Rights and the Council of Europe (2010)
In this matter, we are dealing with European laws. But note how "instruction to discriminate" constitutes discrimination and is included among the violations of human rights.