The Church of Scientology, which makes members sign a billion-year contract as a sign of eternal loyalty, wants the Supreme Court to block former members from suing them.
The case involves a group of women who previously accused That ’70s Show actor and prominent Scientologist Danny Masterson of sexual assault. (He denies those charges and will face trial this fall.) In 2019, those women sued the Church claiming it had harassed and intimidated them over the allegations. This is what the court record indicates: ...
The problem is that contracts might be enforceable if they were a business. However, they are a religion, and thei lawyers made sure that they were classified as a religion. However, freedom of religion means they have the constitutional right to change their minds. So, the contract is not binding.
Also, from strictly a business standpoint, a contract cannot only benefit one side in the agreement in order for it to be legal. The church has to offer some sort of "consideration" in return for what the signatory gives. At least that is what I learned in some contract law classes in college.
I suspect that Scientology will lose the case.
One should think, however, the first, lower court, sided with the "church." Also, this version of SCROTUS is apt to run with this - just imagine forced tithing, etc, if one interprets a baptism as a contract.
Pretty short-sighted of them. A billion years is not even a drop in the eternal bucket.
Scientology approaches this subject in a similar way as Affordable Dentures. Once they do you a bad job they are right there with a non-disclosure contract and when you expose them anyway they are right there to say "it was not us." The big difference is that Scientology will not give you your money back.