评论
打印
The Supreme Court is No Cakewalk
最高法院审理案件绝非易事
By Katy Steinmetz
文/凯蒂·斯坦梅茨
Since same-sex marriage became the law of the land,
同性婚姻写入美国法律后，
the battle over LGBT rights has shifted from the altar to the cash register.
围绕LGBT权利的斗争便从神坛转向了日常生活。
As wedding vendors have turned away same-sex couples for moral reasons,
由于婚庆公司出于道德原因拒绝了同性客户，
lawsuits have pitted the right to be served against the right to refuse.
诉讼的焦点便成了享受服务的权利和拒绝服务的权利的对峙。
The much watched case of Colorado baker Jack Phillips presented a chance for the Supreme Court
备受关注的科罗拉多州蛋糕店老板杰克·菲利普斯的案件就为最高法院提供了一个
to draw lines in a tangled debate about free speech, religious exercise and equal treatment in the public square.
给有关公共场合的言论自由、宗教仪式和平等待遇这一错综复杂的争论划清界限的机会。
But while the ruling came down on June 4, many potent legal questions remain unresolved.
然而，尽管最高法院于6月4日宣布了裁决结果，许多强有力的法律问题仍然未能得到解决。
The narrow decision arrived six years after a clash at Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo.,
6年前，科罗拉多州莱克伍德的杰作蛋糕店内发生了一起冲突。
when Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Phillips to make them a custom wedding cake and he declined,
原来，查理·克雷格和大卫·马林斯想让菲利普斯为他们做一个定制的婚礼蛋糕，菲利普斯拒绝了，
citing his religious opposition to same-sex marriages.
理由是他的宗教信仰反对同性婚姻。
When the couple filed a complaint under a state law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation,
二人便根据该州禁止基于性取向歧视他人的法律起诉了菲利普斯提，
Colorado agencies ruled in their favor.
科罗拉多州有关方面裁定二人胜诉。
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court reversed course and sided with the baker—
最高法院则以7:2的投票结果扭转了科罗拉多州之前的裁定，站到了蛋糕店老板一方——
(in a 7-2 decision),
（投票结果为7:2），
but not because the state agencies necessarily came to the wrong conclusion.
但最高法院作出这一裁定并不代表科罗拉多州的裁决就一定是错的。
The key reason was that officials showed “elements of a clear and impermissible hostility” toward Phillips’ religious beliefs while considering the case,
关键原因在于，科罗拉多州的法官们在审理这一案件时对菲利普斯的宗教信仰表现出了“明显且不可容忍的敌意”，
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the court’s majority opinion.
大法官安东尼·肯尼迪在最高法院的多数意见书中写道。
One piece of evidence the Justices pointed to was a commissioner who “disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable.”
这群法官援引的证据之中，有一条是某专员曾“贬低菲利普斯的信仰是低贱的信仰”。
The legal team representing the couple emphasized that while they may have lost,
代表这对同性恋的律师团队强调，虽然他们可能输掉了这个案子，
the other side did not get the broad win some conservatives hoped for:
对方也没有像一些保守人士希望看到的那样大胜特胜：
a blanket assurance that religious freedom trumps antidiscrimination measures.
全盘保证宗教自由压倒了反歧视措施。
On a conference call, American Civil Liberties Union attorney James Esseks highlighted language that acknowledged the civil rights of gay Americans.
美国公民自由联盟律师詹姆斯·埃塞克斯在一次电话会议上强调了承认美国同性恋的民事权利的重要性。
“Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples
“我们的社会已经认识到，同性恋者和同性恋伴侣
cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,” Kennedy wrote,
不应被社会抛弃，也不应受到尊严和价值上低人一等的待遇，”（最高法院大法官）肯尼迪写道，
adding that business owners cannot be allowed to “in effect”
他还补充说，不能允许企业主张贴实际内涵为
put up signs saying that “no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.”
“如果商品或服务将被用于同性婚姻，则一概免谈”的标志。
译文由可可原创，仅供学习交流使用，未经许可请勿转载。
