今早（六月四日）美國最高法院裁定，Colorado州一家蛋糕店的基督徒東主Jack Philips有權基於宗教信仰理由拒絕為同性婚禮提供結婚禮蛋糕。最高法官投票結果是7對2贊成，只有最自由派的Ginsburg和Sotomayor反對。
Phillip是被州民權委員會（Civil Rights Commission）控告，說他剝奪了兩名同性戀者的民權，但由Kennedy大法官起草的判決書中指出，「民權委員會的敵意違反了憲法第一修正案對實施法律時對宗教保持中立的保證。Philips 有權得到一個中立的決策者，為他公平和中立地對他的宗教異議給予充分和公平的考慮。」（The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. Phillips was entitled to a neutral decisionmaker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection as he sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which this case was presented, considered, and decided.）判決書全文可點擊這裡閱讀。
值得一提的，是之前特朗普政府向最高法院遞交一份文件支持Philips （點擊這裡可閱讀該文件），即特朗普政府贊成可以因為個人信仰而不被迫去支持違背信仰的行動，這是維持美國人宗教自由的里程碑。
過去幾年有好幾宗類似的訴訟，我曾報導過在華盛頓州一位七十二歲的花店店主Barronelle Stutzman被迫害的事（點擊這裡閱讀），她被華盛頓州最高法院裁定敗訴，希望Philips案件的判決對她和其他類似案件有幫助。
後記：
今天的裁決當然是好消息，但細讀判決書後我有兩點看法。
1. 今次最高法院沒有判決基督徒一定可以用宗教信仰理由去拒絕這些同性戀者的要求，而是判決Colorado州的民權委員會在處理這件事上偏幫同性戀者，沒有公平地對待Philips先生，故違反了憲法第一修正案給予Philips先生的權利。因此贊成的法官有7名，包括左傾的Breyer和Kagan法官。
2.基於上述原因，這個判決只適用於Philips先生這件案，不能用在其他類似的案件。
當然，基督徒的民權亦受到憲法保護，這個判決對基督徒爭取不參予違背自己信仰的活動相當有幫助，所以仍然是值得慶賀的。
有人認為這個判決對其他宗教例如伊斯蘭教也適用，這是當然的事，法律必須一視同仁。但沒有人敢欺壓伊斯蘭教徒，基督徒卻往往是受欺負的一群，因此今天的判決雖然不是想像中的大步，也是向前行的一小步。
6/4/2018
From Alliance Defending Freedom:
Jack Phillips has worked in the cake industry for 40 years. And he always strives to live his life and run his business, Masterpiece Cakeshop, in a way that glorifies God.
That’s why, when a couple walked into his store in 2012 asking Jack to design a custom cake for their same-sex wedding, he had to decline. Jack serves all people, but he cannot celebrate every event. He believes what the Bible teaches about marriage – that it is the union of one man and one woman. And he should never be forced to violate that belief by using his artistic talents to celebrate an event contrary to that.
But that’s not a freedom the State of Colorado was interested in upholding. The couple filed discrimination complaints with the state, and the state started administrative proceedings against Jack for “discrimination.” Jack’s case has been working its way through the court system for almost five years. The U.S. Supreme Court heard his case in December 2017.
Here are six things you might not know about Jack and his case:
1. Jack does not discriminate.
Jack has never discriminated against anyone, and he certainly didn’t refuse to serve the couple that filed a discrimination complaint against him. When they walked into his shop, he offered to sell them cookies, brownies, or anything pre-made from his shelves. But that was not enough. The government wants to force him to use his artistic talents to celebrate events that violate his faith.
2. Jack has turned down other cakes in the past.
There are several types of cakes that Jack will not make. For example, he won’t make cakes with alcohol in them. He won’t do Halloween cakes or lewd cakes for something like a bachelor party. In the past, he has even turned down a cake celebrating a divorce. A cake artist deciding which messages he will promote has nothing to do with the concerns behind public accommodation laws.
3. Jack has faced anti-religious bigotry as well as threats and intimidation simply because he declined to promote an event.
hen Jack was first sued, he received an avalanche of hateful calls and letters. At one point, a caller made a death threat against him and his family, telling Jack that he was going to show up at their cake shop. Fearing the worst, Jack had to call the police. No one should have their peace of mind taken away from them simply because they live consistently with their beliefs.
4. Jack owns a private family business, and he doesn’t give up his rights when he sells his art.
When Jack puts the “Open” sign on his business, he does not have to abandon his constitutional rights. Just like any other American, the First Amendment protects Jack’s freedom to run his family business consistently with his faith and to decline to promote messages that violate his beliefs. That’s a principle we should all be able to get behind.
5. Jack’s shop has been called an “art gallery of cakes.”
Not only did a local reporter call Jack’s cakeshop “an art gallery of cakes,” but Jack’s cake designs were also featured on advertisements for Season 2 of TLC’s Cake Boss. When Jack receives a custom order, he pours his artistic ideas and talents into making something special for his clients. He should not have to use his creative expression to promote something that conflicts with his deeply held convictions.
6. Wedding cakes made up about 40 percent of Jack’s business.
Jack loves creating special, custom designs for weddings. Because of the state’s order requiring him to create anything for same-sex couples that he creates for opposite sex couples, Jack is no longer able to create wedding cakes. If Jack has to step out of the wedding industry permanently, his business will take a huge hit. Jack shouldn’t be barred from working in an industry he loves simply because the tenets of his faith define marriage differently than the Colorado government.
We asked the Supreme Court to affirm that Jack – and all Americans – have the right to peacefully live and work according to their beliefs without fear of government punishment.
林修榮談天說地 