评论
打印
The ruling was still a win for those who believe religious freedom is under attack.
在认为宗教自由受到了攻击的人群看来，这项裁决依然是一场胜利。
Some Christians feel they’re unfairly victimized for holding the increasingly unpopular opinion
一些基督徒认为，他们因为持反对同性婚姻这一越来越不受欢迎的立场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.
最高法院的裁决进一步煽动了他们的怒火。
“They really quashed the playing of favorites,” says Nicolle Martin, Phillips’ lead counsel in Colorado.
“他们真的遏止了厚此薄彼这一做法，”（蛋糕店老板）菲利普斯在科罗拉多州的首席法律顾问尼考尔·马丁说道。
“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.
最高法院的这一裁决传达出的最明确的信息或许是，日后调解这些冲突时，政府官员最好保持谨慎。
AMONG THE QUESTIONS that remain unanswered:
最高法院的裁决没有解答的问题包括：
Does forcing a baker to make a cake for a same-sex wedding violate the baker’s rights to free speech?
强迫蛋糕师为同性婚礼制作蛋糕是否侵犯了其言论自由的权利？
Is making a cake a form of speech?
制作蛋糕是否算是一种语言？
If another gay couple came into Masterpiece Cakeshop today and asked for a wedding cake,
如果今天又有一对同性恋伴侣来到大师蛋糕店买结婚蛋糕，
would Phillips be within his rights to refuse them?
菲力普斯还有权拒绝吗？
Experts say it remains unclear.
专家表示，目前尚不清楚。
“Whatever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these,” Kennedy wrote,
“无论未来涉及类似事实的争议结果如何，”肯尼迪写道，
the Colorado ruling must be set aside because it was not the result of “neutral and respectful consideration.”
科罗拉多州的裁决“考虑不够中立，缺乏尊重”，必须搁置。
There will certainly be future controversy:
未来肯定难逃争议：
among the cases the Supreme Court may soon hear is one involving a florist
最高法院即将审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.
拒绝为华盛顿州的一场同性婚礼提供鲜花的案子。
(The state ruled for the couple.)
(该州做出了有利于同性恋情侣的裁决。)
Some LGBT-rights advocates believe that the ruling itself will generate more litigation—that despite the caveats,
一些LGBT权益倡导者认为，这项裁决本身就会引发更多的诉讼——即便有这些警告，
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.
蛋糕店老板胜诉的事实还是会激发更多宗教企业主拒绝LGBT人群，被拒绝的LGBT人群反过来也有了提起诉讼的理由。
“This Supreme Court opinion invites a lot more discrimination to test the contours of these legal principles,”
“最高法院的这一裁决引发了更多的歧视，这些法律原则的轮廓也因此受到了考验，”
says Jennifer Pizer, law and policy director for the LGBT civil rights organization Lambda Legal.
LGBT民权组织浪达法律基金会的法律和政策部主管詹妮弗·皮策说道。
After the ruling, Mullins and Craig vowed that “our fight against discrimination and unfair treatment will continue.”
裁决落定后，马林斯和克雷格信誓旦旦地表示，“我们反歧视和反不公正待遇的斗争不会就此止步。”
As for Phillips, he was back at his shop, serving supportive customers.
至于菲利普斯，他回到了店里，继续服务支持他的那些顾客。
When asked, Martin said the baker was thrilled about the ruling and “very thankful” to higher powers.
当被问到该问题时，马丁透露，蛋糕师对裁决结果大喜过望，表示“非常感谢”高层。
译文由可可原创，仅供学习交流使用，未经许可请勿转载。
