評(píng)論
打印
The ruling was still a win for those who believe religious freedom is under attack.
在認(rèn)為宗教自由受到了攻擊的人群看來，這項(xiàng)裁決依然是一場(chǎng)勝利。
Some Christians feel they’re unfairly victimized for holding the increasingly unpopular opinion
一些基督徒認(rèn)為，他們因?yàn)槌址磳?duì)同性婚姻這一越來越不受歡迎的立場(chǎng)遭受了不公平的待遇，
that same-sex marriage is wrong, and the Supreme Court decision is fuel for their fires.
最高法院的裁決進(jìn)一步煽動(dòng)了他們的怒火。
“They really quashed the playing of favorites,” says Nicolle Martin, Phillips’ lead counsel in Colorado.
“他們真的遏止了厚此薄彼這一做法，”（蛋糕店老板）菲利普斯在科羅拉多州的首席法律顧問尼考爾·馬丁說道。
“If somebody has a sincere conviction, you can’t dismiss it.”
“衷心的信仰是不能消除的。”
The clearest message of the decision may be that government officials had best be careful as they continue to referee these fights.
最高法院的這一裁決傳達(dá)出的最明確的信息或許是，日后調(diào)解這些沖突時(shí)，政府官員最好保持謹(jǐn)慎。
AMONG THE QUESTIONS that remain unanswered:
最高法院的裁決沒有解答的問題包括：
Does forcing a baker to make a cake for a same-sex wedding violate the baker’s rights to free speech?
強(qiáng)迫蛋糕師為同性婚禮制作蛋糕是否侵犯了其言論自由的權(quán)利？
Is making a cake a form of speech?
制作蛋糕是否算是一種語言？
If another gay couple came into Masterpiece Cakeshop today and asked for a wedding cake,
如果今天又有一對(duì)同性戀伴侶來到大師蛋糕店買結(jié)婚蛋糕，
would Phillips be within his rights to refuse them?
菲力普斯還有權(quán)拒絕嗎？
Experts say it remains unclear.
專家表示，目前尚不清楚。
“Whatever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these,” Kennedy wrote,
“無論未來涉及類似事實(shí)的爭(zhēng)議結(jié)果如何，”肯尼迪寫道，
the Colorado ruling must be set aside because it was not the result of “neutral and respectful consideration.”
科羅拉多州的裁決“考慮不夠中立，缺乏尊重”，必須擱置。
There will certainly be future controversy:
未來肯定難逃爭(zhēng)議：
among the cases the Supreme Court may soon hear is one involving a florist
最高法院即將審理的案件中就有一起涉及一家花店
who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding in Washington State.
拒絕為華盛頓州的一場(chǎng)同性婚禮提供鮮花的案子。
(The state ruled for the couple.)
(該州做出了有利于同性戀情侶的裁決。)
Some LGBT-rights advocates believe that the ruling itself will generate more litigation—that despite the caveats,
一些LGBT權(quán)益倡導(dǎo)者認(rèn)為，這項(xiàng)裁決本身就會(huì)引發(fā)更多的訴訟——即便有這些警告，
the fact that the baker won will embolden more religious business owners to turn away LGBT people, who may in turn have cause to sue.
蛋糕店老板勝訴的事實(shí)還是會(huì)激發(fā)更多宗教企業(yè)主拒絕LGBT人群，被拒絕的LGBT人群反過來也有了提起訴訟的理由。
“This Supreme Court opinion invites a lot more discrimination to test the contours of these legal principles,”
“最高法院的這一裁決引發(fā)了更多的歧視，這些法律原則的輪廓也因此受到了考驗(yàn)，”
says Jennifer Pizer, law and policy director for the LGBT civil rights organization Lambda Legal.
LGBT民權(quán)組織浪達(dá)法律基金會(huì)的法律和政策部主管詹妮弗·皮策說道。
After the ruling, Mullins and Craig vowed that “our fight against discrimination and unfair treatment will continue.”
裁決落定后，馬林斯和克雷格信誓旦旦地表示，“我們反歧視和反不公正待遇的斗爭(zhēng)不會(huì)就此止步。”
As for Phillips, he was back at his shop, serving supportive customers.
至于菲利普斯，他回到了店里，繼續(xù)服務(wù)支持他的那些顧客。
When asked, Martin said the baker was thrilled about the ruling and “very thankful” to higher powers.
當(dāng)被問到該問題時(shí)，馬丁透露，蛋糕師對(duì)裁決結(jié)果大喜過望，表示“非常感謝”高層。
譯文由可可原創(chuàng)，僅供學(xué)習(xí)交流使用，未經(jīng)許可請(qǐng)勿轉(zhuǎn)載。
