[Mark was here]

For a moment set the religious aspect of this case aside. Do members of a club have contractual rights in a club they pay dues to?

Nothing wrong a court enforcing a contract is there?

[glaux]

"...what's to prevent any church board from kicking out anyone they disagree with?"

Nothing.

[tahiti]

"Nothing wrong a court enforcing a contract is there?"

You nailed it.

The church can't have it both ways.

They want the financial protection of a corporation and bylaws, but when a member of the corporation has to go to court to enforce the bylaws they run from the protection of the corporation.

[King Black Robe]

That's different. Church donations are not dues. There is no contract.

Are churches going to have to make members sign contracts now. Is that what you suggest?

[Valpal1]

Did these church members have a signed contract and pay dues?

This is another silly abuse of the legal system by Kalifornians. Not that I expect the 9th Circuit Court to slap it down, so it will eventually wind up in the USCC, wasting the time and resources of the litigants and us taxpayers too.

[JZoback]

For a moment set the religious aspect of this case aside.

You can't set that aside because the religious aspect defines it as a church issue.

Do members of a club have contractual rights in a club they pay dues to?

If they sign a membership agreement. If a church was a club, which it isn't. Giving of your free will is not paying dues.

Nothing wrong a court enforcing a contract is there?

Of course not. Can't enforce something that isn't there as in this case.

That has absolutely nothing to due with a religious institution

You position defines a Straw-man argument if there ever was one.