In the church’s appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, it raised the question of whether Pleasant Glades’ First Amendment rights regarding freedom of religion do not prevent the church from being held liable for mental distress triggered by what it described as a “hyper spiritualistic environment.”

For the court to impose any legal liability on members would possibly have an unconstitutional ‘chilling effect’ by compelling the church to abandon core principles, Justice David Medina wrote.

In a stinging dissent, Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson said the majority’s opinion is an “overly broad holding” that conflicts with well-settled legal and constitutional principles that could “prove to be dangerous in practice.”

via Supreme Court gets exorcism case of ex-Colleyville woman | Northeast Tarrant |

My question: when a church’s “hyper spiritualistic environment” causes not only mental, but physical, harm to a person then does the 1st amendment apply?  Does freedom of religion trump personal safety?  I think not.  This is yet another case of religious whackaloonery causing physical and emotional damage to a person.