英文摘要 |
This article intends to analyze Obergefell v. Hodges and Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission to explore the conflict and reconciliation between same-sex marriage and religious liberty. The controversial points of this issue include the relevance and conflict of constitutional unenumerated rights interpretations and the traditional understanding of religious rights. How should these fundamental values be balanced under constitutional qualifications? Can the state’s interest in protecting the rights of same-sex marriage be weighed against people’s sincerely held religious beliefs? To answer these questions, this article will first analyze the majority opinion and dissenting opinion of Obergefell, focusing on the definition of “freedom.” The second part will be introducing different state’s sexual orientation non-discrimination laws and circumstances in which people’s fundamental rights clash. To be more specific, the article aims to explore potential conflicts in the field of law as the concept of marriage develops. In part three and four, the article will focus on Masterpiece Cakeshop, analyzing the reasons behind the conflict of same-sex marriage and religious liberty. This article then concludes that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right. Nevertheless, as equal protection of the right to marry should be safeguarded, religious beliefs are still protected under the Free Exercise Clause in particular cases such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, therefore allowing people to refuse to provide services to same-sex couples. |