※ [本文轉錄自 Gossiping 看板 #1R5vVNVt ]
作者: DCHC (純愛基本教義派♥) 看板: Gossiping
標題: Re: [爆卦] 美國同性戀蛋糕案宣判！甲甲敗訴！
時間: Wed Jun 6 16:14:00 2018
※ 引述《DCHC (純愛基本教義派♥)》之銘言：
: Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n
:
: 依照最高法院法官的判決意義(Holding)，
: 法官服從憲法第一修正案的規定，
: 保護蛋糕店老闆的宗教信仰，所以認定民權委員會違反自由行為條款。
:
: 而最高法院承認同性戀婚姻的判決與本案無關，
: 同性戀情侶仍可以接受婚禮與擁有婚姻生活。
:
: 所以民權委員會，不得以科羅拉多州的保護同性戀法律，侵害人民的宗教信仰自由。
:
:
: 求神憐憫我們犯錯，感謝神保守我們幸福平安。
: 推 yuriforever: 蓋 06/05 21:54
: → yuriforever: 蓋 06/05 21:54
: 噓 maxisam: 妳閱讀能力真的很強 科羅拉多州根本沒有保護同性戀法律 06/05 22:47
你說錯了，Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA),
It is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons。
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dora/civil-rights/colorado-revised-statutes
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/costillacounty/atom/3111
: 推 legendary85: 推推某族群就是甲中立散佈謠言黑蛋糕師傅帶風向 06/06 00:16
: → dillams: 並不是 不得以反歧視法侵害宗教自由 06/06 02:09
: → dillams: 而是 侵害宗教自由的此民權委員會做出的判決無效 好嗎 06/06 02:10
: → dillams: 就說了大法官這次根本沒有讓反歧視法和宗教/言論自由對決 06/06 02:11
市民委員會對信仰自由的認定錯誤理由，
是市民委員會誤用反歧視法，
The Commission’s actions in this case violated the Free Exercise
Clause.
最高法院法官認為市民委員會不得誤用反歧視法，
違反憲法第一修正案，侵害人民的信仰自由。
因此法官的意見是：
First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and
persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach
the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their
lives and faiths.”
The commissioner even went so far as to compare Phillips’invocation
of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and
the Holocaust.
This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn
responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s
antidiscrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on
the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.
反歧視法(anti-discrimination law)只是保護同性戀的基本人權，
因此法官的意見是：
It is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons, just as it
can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products
and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered
to other members of the public. And there are no doubt innumerable goods
and services that no one could argue implicate the First Amendment.
Petitioners conceded, moreover, that if a baker refused to sell any goods
or any cakes for gay weddings, that would be a different matter and the
State would have a strong case under this Court’s precedents that this
would be a denial of goods and services that went beyond any protected
rights of a baker who offers goods and services to the general public and
is subject to a neutrally applied and generally applicable public
accommodations law.
同理，同性戀信仰創造宇宙的神神，
其他同性戀也應該遵守第一修正案，
不得以反歧視法侵害同性戀的信仰自由。
In God we trust ，
因此，美國的同性戀案件的判決，
法官仍依照美國獨立宣言宣示的道德真理，判定每個行為的對錯。
所以最高法院法官依照本院過去每件判決所形成的意見，
保護同性戀的基本權利，也保護異性戀的基本權利。
求神憐憫我們犯錯，感謝神保守我們幸福平安。