評論
打印
The Supreme Court is No Cakewalk
最高法院審理案件絕非易事
By Katy Steinmetz
文/凱蒂·斯坦梅茨
Since same-sex marriage became the law of the land,
同性婚姻寫入美國法律后，
the battle over LGBT rights has shifted from the altar to the cash register.
圍繞LGBT權利的斗爭便從神壇轉向了日常生活。
As wedding vendors have turned away same-sex couples for moral reasons,
由于婚慶公司出于道德原因拒絕了同性客戶，
lawsuits have pitted the right to be served against the right to refuse.
訴訟的焦點便成了享受服務的權利和拒絕服務的權利的對峙。
The much watched case of Colorado baker Jack Phillips presented a chance for the Supreme Court
備受關注的科羅拉多州蛋糕店老板杰克·菲利普斯的案件就為最高法院提供了一個
to draw lines in a tangled debate about free speech, religious exercise and equal treatment in the public square.
給有關公共場合的言論自由、宗教儀式和平等待遇這一錯綜復雜的爭論劃清界限的機會。
But while the ruling came down on June 4, many potent legal questions remain unresolved.
然而，盡管最高法院于6月4日宣布了裁決結果，許多強有力的法律問題仍然未能得到解決。
The narrow decision arrived six years after a clash at Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo.,
6年前，科羅拉多州萊克伍德的杰作蛋糕店內發生了一起沖突。
when Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Phillips to make them a custom wedding cake and he declined,
原來，查理·克雷格和大衛·馬林斯想讓菲利普斯為他們做一個定制的婚禮蛋糕，菲利普斯拒絕了，
citing his religious opposition to same-sex marriages.
理由是他的宗教信仰反對同性婚姻。
When the couple filed a complaint under a state law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation,
二人便根據該州禁止基于性取向歧視他人的法律起訴了菲利普斯提，
Colorado agencies ruled in their favor.
科羅拉多州有關方面裁定二人勝訴。
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court reversed course and sided with the baker—
最高法院則以7:2的投票結果扭轉了科羅拉多州之前的裁定，站到了蛋糕店老板一方——
(in a 7-2 decision),
（投票結果為7:2），
but not because the state agencies necessarily came to the wrong conclusion.
但最高法院作出這一裁定并不代表科羅拉多州的裁決就一定是錯的。
The key reason was that officials showed “elements of a clear and impermissible hostility” toward Phillips’ religious beliefs while considering the case,
關鍵原因在于，科羅拉多州的法官們在審理這一案件時對菲利普斯的宗教信仰表現出了“明顯且不可容忍的敵意”，
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the court’s majority opinion.
大法官安東尼·肯尼迪在最高法院的多數意見書中寫道。
One piece of evidence the Justices pointed to was a commissioner who “disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable.”
這群法官援引的證據之中，有一條是某專員曾“貶低菲利普斯的信仰是低賤的信仰”。
The legal team representing the couple emphasized that while they may have lost,
代表這對同性戀的律師團隊強調，雖然他們可能輸掉了這個案子，
the other side did not get the broad win some conservatives hoped for:
對方也沒有像一些保守人士希望看到的那樣大勝特勝：
a blanket assurance that religious freedom trumps antidiscrimination measures.
全盤保證宗教自由壓倒了反歧視措施。
On a conference call, American Civil Liberties Union attorney James Esseks highlighted language that acknowledged the civil rights of gay Americans.
美國公民自由聯盟律師詹姆斯·埃塞克斯在一次電話會議上強調了承認美國同性戀的民事權利的重要性。
“Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples
“我們的社會已經認識到，同性戀者和同性戀伴侶
cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,” Kennedy wrote,
不應被社會拋棄，也不應受到尊嚴和價值上低人一等的待遇，”（最高法院大法官）肯尼迪寫道，
adding that business owners cannot be allowed to “in effect”
他還補充說，不能允許企業主張貼實際內涵為
put up signs saying that “no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.”
“如果商品或服務將被用于同性婚姻，則一概免談”的標志。
譯文由可可原創，僅供學習交流使用，未經許可請勿轉載。
