How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!
Emotion will not get it .lawmakers when not change with the weather but they will change with the climate.
Mr lalibertie do i have permission to post this everywhere ie local news stations as well as bbc.
poopie: Feel free to do so. :)
Stephanie can i copy your post and distribute widely?
His schooling was definitely disrupted as he had to sleep on a friends couch until he completed HS ( associate degree, too!)
In the US you can look at a very recent case. The decision was ruled on 7/11/2018.
Hubbard v J Message Group Corp.,
The corporation was the legal entity of a religious organization that promoted the belief of reincarnation and the teaching of their leader, Mr. Alexander.
It is a very complicated set of circumstances including the ostracization of church members, the publishing of those members names and the statements that some of those members were "porn stars." Very complicated but very interesting reading.
The US District Court for the District of New Mexico ruled that the practices that were being sued over were, in fact, religious beliefs. In its decision, it made the following statement, about whether the matter could be resolved under the neutral principle of law, which the US Constitution and US Supreme Court require.
Broadly speaking, Plaintiff seeks damages arising from two forms of allegedly tortious conduct: Defendants' statements about the nature of Plaintiff's soul, which were disseminated to the membership of JMGC/CoW; and Defendants' efforts to ostracize her from the organization and its members, including her then-fiancée, now husband, Mr. Kyzer. Plaintiff claims that this is purely a secular dispute that can be resolved through the application of neutral principles of law without “doctrinal or organizational entanglement.” (Doc. 32 at 3.) The Court does not agree.
The court then took these two points separately, the defamation and the ostracizing of former members. This is what the court said on the latter in the longer discussion.
second principle relevant to the facts and circumstances
here, is that the First Amendment bars tort claims
that arise from circumstances in which a plaintiff has
been ostracized from a religious community—a practice
known, formally in some religions, as “shunning.” See
Paul, 819 F.2d at 876-77 (recognizing that “shunning” is
a form of ostracism that purportedly has its roots in early
Christianity, and which is practiced by various religious
groups, including the Amish, Mennonites, and Jehovah's
Witnesses). In these cases, too, courts have concluded that
even where the religious organization engages in conduct
that, in other circumstances could be actionable under
tort law, the First Amendment does not permit judicial
interference in what are, essentially, ecclesiastical disputes
concerning membership in religious organizations.
For example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
concluded, in Paul, that to allow a plaintiff to pursue tort
claims against a religious organization based on shunning
practices would effectively abridge the free exercise of
religion guaranteed by the First Amendment. 15 819
F.2d at 880. The plaintiff in Paul, a former member
of the Jehovah's Witnesses, having been told by a
close childhood friend: “I can't speak to you. You
are disfellowshipped.”; having received similar treatment
from other friends; and having been ostracized at a
tupperware party at the home of a Jehovah's witness
because “the Elders” had instructed members of the faith
not to speak to her, filed tort claims against the corporate
arms of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Id. at 876-77. In her lawsuit, the plaintiff claimed that
defendants had engaged in intentional conduct causing
emotional distress, intentional conduct causing alienation
of affections, and intentional conduct causing harm to
reputation. Id. at 879. In affirming the dismissal of
plaintiff's lawsuit, the Paul court concluded that the
imposition of tort damages on the Jehovah's Witnesses
for engaging in the religious practice of shunning would
essentially criminalize and force the church to forego the
practice, thereby imposing a direct burden on religion.
Id. at 880-81 (citing Langford v. United States, 101 U.S.
341, 345, 25 L.Ed. 1010 (1879) for the proposition that
“the very essence of a tort is that it is an unlawful
act” (alteration omitted) ).
*12 In another case involving “disfellowship” or
“shunning,” the Supreme Court of Alaska concluded
that the First Amendment barred a plaintiff's claims
of negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and defamation, among
others. Sands v. Living Word Fellowship, 34 P.3d 955, 956,
959 (Alaska 2001). In Sands, the plaintiff shot himself in
an attempted suicide after a church (Living Word) and two
of its members (the parents of the plaintiff's girlfriend),
instructed the congregants of Living Word as well as
the congregants of eight other churches to “shun” the
members of Wasilla Ministries—the church to which the
plaintiff belonged. Id. at 957. Among other things, the
defendants said that Wasilla Ministries was a cult, and
that the plaintiff was a “cult recruiter.” Id. Underlying
this feud was a disagreement on parental authority—
apparently related to the relationship between the plaintiff
and his girlfriend, and biblical interpretation. Id. Two
local newspapers published the defendants' allegations
against Wasilla Ministries. Id. These events caused the
plaintiff great emotional distress and led him to attempt
suicide which attempt, though unsuccessful, rendered him
paralyzed from the chest down. Id.
The Sands court reasoned that the defendants' “shunning”
directive to its congregation and that of eight other
churches was religiously based, and was motivated by
religion. Id. at 959. Likewise, the court reasoned that
defendant's statements that the plaintiff was a cult
recruiter, and the church of which he was a member
was a cult were statements reflecting religious beliefs and
opinions. Id. at 960. Because the plaintiff's claims arose
out of an essentially religious dispute, the Sands court
accordingly concluded that the claims were barred by the
First Amendment. Id. at 959-60.
Does religous shunning in u.s. violate 14th amendment?
No, it does not. Because the 14th Amendment does 2 things. It defines who is a citizen of the United States of America. The second is that it extends the rights guaranteed by the constitution to States. Meaning that state law can be struck down if in violation to the US Constitution.
This is from wikipedia. Not the most reliable source but in a pinch it will do.
The amendment's first section includes several clauses: the Citizenship Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship, nullifying the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States. Since the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the Privileges or Immunities Clause has been interpreted to do very little.
The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without a fair procedure. The Supreme Court has ruled this clause makes most of the Bill of Rights as applicable to the states as it is to the federal government, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy. The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people, including all non-citizens, within its jurisdiction. This clause has been the basis for many decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups.
The second, third, and fourth sections of the amendment are seldom litigated. However, the second section's reference to "rebellion, or other crime" has been invoked as a constitutional ground for felony disenfranchisement. The fourth section was held, in Perry v. United States (1935), to prohibit a current Congress from abrogating a contract of debt incurred by a prior Congress. The fifth section gives Congress the power to enforce the amendment's provisions by "appropriate legislation"; however, under City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), this power may not be used to contradict a Supreme Court decision interpreting the amendment.
The bold was added by me. it states that it prohibits state and local governments. key thing is governments, from abridging the rights in the constitution.
It is a priledge and a right to speak to any citizen of the u.s. without having to worry about forfeiting your right to enjoy peace with your own family I know to some that is meaningless but to most people they would like to keep there families without reprisals from other citizens its important.
It maybe important but making something actionable is a different matter.