Is 1st amendment an enabler for destructive religions?

Can Religions that promote and enforce slander, libel, and discrimination of former members through written material that states because they choose to no longer be apart of the church, are of substandard moral character, inferior, and undesirable, and are to be stigmatized by shunning, be challenged in a court of law?

Since the 1st amendment appears to be an enabler for destructive religions that spin civil, human rights offences. misrepresentation, libel and fraud into protected “eccleiastical priviledge” why not fight fire with fire by bringing this conduct to court in the language that they can work with?!! So much documented misrepresentation of fact, citations, fraudulent medical advise, those who want to walk away for the unethical behavior, are slandered, as documents state, promote and enforce, any former member to be treated as substandard moral character, inferior, deviant, undesirable regardless how they leave. The above inquiry was made and answered in the affirmative, is anyone able to begin a class action suit?

What specific instances are you talking about?

a certain religion promote and enforce under ecclesiastical priviledge, a method that appears to control members from discontinueing membership, even when their reasons are valid due to percieved unacceptable, unethical behavior, and misrepresentation of facts by said religion, that their consience cannot tolerate and would like to leave with the dignity they came with. This church directly attacks the virtue, of the individual as follows, it is so adeptly woven, spun, if you will ,from their interpretation of scripture into a doctrine as follows:
the person by word and/or actions has clearly terminated his status as one of XXXXXXXXX, disassociating himself. Hence, the elders will announce briefly to the congregation that this individual has disassociated himself. Those in the congregation will accept the person's decision and thereafter will view him as a former brother with whom they would not fellowship,( shun or discriminate against) in harmony with what we read at :

(1 Corinthians 5:11-13) . . .But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. 12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do YOU not judge those inside, 13 while God judges those outside? "Remove the wicked [man] from among yourselves."
THey continue with Such ones willfully abandoning the Christian congregation thereby become part of the 'antichrist.
Then they reason this way A person who had willfully and formally disassociated himself from the congregation would have matched that description. By deliberately repudiating God's congregation and by renouncing the Christian way, he would have made himself an apostate. A loyal Christian would not have wanted to fellowship with an apostate. Even if they had been friends, when someone repudiated the congregation, apostatizing, he rejected the basis for closeness to the brothers. John made it clear that he himself would not have in his home someone who 'did not have God' and who was "not of our sort."
Scripturally, a person who repudiated God's congregation became more reprehensible than those in the world. ..... that Christians must "quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother" who resumed ungodly ways. (1 Corinthians 5:9-11) Similarly, Peter stated that one who had "escaped from the defilements of the world" but then reverted to his former life was like a sow returning to the mire. ( most persons leaving on their own not kicked out for wrongdoing have not led a a life that violate church offences) (2 Peter 2:20-22) Hence, John was providing harmonious counsel in directing that Christians were not to 'receive into their homes' one who willfully 'went out from among them.'—2 John 10.
John added: "For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works."
I know you had to wade through a lot of biblical stuff but my concerns are why must a person be burdend with such salacious labeling, which under any oher circumstance would be libelous, slander and defamation simple because they choose not to be identified as a member of this religion?
Is there any provision whereby and individual could make it clear their reasons for leaving, where the church is ( compelled by law) to post somewhere stating the reasons for their departure and leave it up to others free will to view them as they truthfully are and not as represented from the church?
Is there a case? Are any human or civil rights being violated here? And could this issue be brought before a tribunal to seek to change this blatant attempt to control with fear of reprisal, cleverly disguised as ecclesiastical priviledge there for untouchable by seperation of church and state?

Your input would be greatly appreciated
All the best,