政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/136491

政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/136491

English | 正體中文 | 简体中文 | Post-Print筆數 : 27 | Items with full text/Total items : 113318/144297 (79%)
Visitors : 51024263 Online Users : 908

RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.

Scope

please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results

please goto advance search for comprehansive author search

Adv. Search

Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer

Goto mobile version

政大典藏 > College of Law > Department of Law > Theses > Item 140.119/136491

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/136491

Title:	同性婚姻平權與宗教信仰自由之衝突與權衡—以宗教信徒及團體拒絕服務同性伴侶之憲法爭議為中心 The Conflict and Reconciliation Between Same-sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Concentrating on the Constitutional Controversy over Religious Objectors Refusing Serving Same-sex Couples
Authors:	林冠廷 Lin, Kuan-Ting
Contributors:	廖元豪 Liao, Yuan-Hao 林冠廷 Lin, Kuan-Ting
Keywords:	同性婚姻宗教自由宗教豁免平等保護權利衝突與調和層級化宗教自由保障 Same-Sex Marriage Free Exercise of Religion Religious Exemption Equal Protection The Conflict and Reconciliation of Rights The Hierarchy Protection of Religious Freedom
Date:	2021
Issue Date:	2021-08-04 15:41:36 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	本文旨在探討同性婚姻與宗教自由（又稱履行／行使宗教之自由）之間的衝突與調和。自我國司法院大法官肯認憲法保障同性二人婚姻自由平等保護，使得同性伴侶得以受憲法及法律肯認其法律上地位（婚姻關係），而與他人發生權利義務法律關係。問題是，當宗教團體與信徒基於其反對同性婚姻之宗教信仰拒絕服務同性伴侶，而被政府處罰或施加負擔，造成其無法履行其宗教目的，是否侵害其宗教自由？這議題涉及憲法未列舉權之解釋與傳統宗教信仰對於權利理解間的相關性和衝突性，以及在憲法要求下，如何衡平這些基本價值？國家利益是否可與個人真誠的宗教相權衡？本文首先分析宗教自由保障與宗教豁免一般性法律爭議。本文整理美國憲法學上宗教自由理論之發展，重新檢視我國憲法第13條「人民有信仰宗教之自由」真義，帶出在法律適用上造成宗教自由實質負擔時的審查標準。第二部分則是從美國聯邦最高法院Obergefell v. Hodges案與我國司法院釋字第748號解釋之比較，探究不同價值觀影響非憲法明文之基本權之闡釋，以及世俗婚姻觀與宗教婚姻觀之論辯。本文以為，非憲法明文之基本權解釋必須與時俱進，而世俗婚姻與宗教婚姻兩者雖有相關但不必然會等同。按憲法保障人民多元價值之主張，但當同性伴侶以同志身分為生活實踐，並進入就業、交易等各種社會生活層面，與宗教信徒「教義履行行為」相遇，就會發生具體衝突，進而產生之後「同性婚姻與宗教自由之基本權衝突」。為凸顯此議題，本文嘗試在第三部份，參考美國法已發生之案例，舉出幾則我國目前可能會發生的衝突情況，並列出幾則美國聯邦及州法院的相關裁判。回顧這些宗教團體和信徒以宗教理由拒絕服務同性婚姻的案例，法院似乎有類型化處理這些婚禮供應商（花商、攝影師、婚禮策劃者）和宗教異議者（如宗教學院、收養、寄養機構等）因其傳統信仰而面臨性傾向歧視處罰的爭議。尤其是2018年Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission以及2021年Fulton v. City of Philadelphia，對於同性婚姻與宗教自由具有相當重要的影響。本文歸納相關裁判意旨，看出有些法院基於貫徹同性婚姻平等保護而認為宗教自由必須限縮，也有法院認為政府適用反歧視法對待宗教異議者之宗教信仰必須秉持中立與寬容，亦有法院主張從「迫切利益標準」，政府措施並不符合該標準而違憲。本文以為，美國憲法學經驗值得做為我國憲法宗教自由理論發展之參考，並提出「類型化權衡標準」解決同性婚姻與宗教自由之基本權衝突問題。另外，基於宗教履行行為之事物本質，本文提出「層級化宗教自由審查」理論，法院應就所涉及之領域不同，而有不同之審查。本文結論認為，消弭性傾向歧視與同性婚姻平等保護亦是憲法所要保障之極重大公益目的，國家必須給予同性伴侶與他人同等的條件來行使其自由權，但在涉及宗教核心領域或與宗教信仰有密切相關的範疇，宗教團體及信徒可以在自由行使條款保障之下，在不嚴重影響同性伴侶的前提下，基於其真摯的宗教信仰而拒絕服務於同性伴侶。 This thesis intends to explore the conflict and reconciliation between same-sex marriage and religious liberty (or “free exercise of religion”). Since Taiwan Constitutional Court has ruled that the Constitution guarantees two persons of the same sex equal protection of the freedom of marriage, the Constitution and civil law acknowledge the marital legal status of same sex couples. Nevertheless, the constitutionality of “government punitive measures” against those refusing to serve same-sex couples remains an issue. The controversial points 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 same-sex marriage be weighed against people’s sincerely held religious beliefs? To answer these questions, this thesis will first analyze theories of free exercise of religion in the U.S Constitution and whether religious actions are exempted from the neutral and generally applicable law. Furthermore, the thesis will generalize from the development of the theory of religious freedom in American constitutional jurisprudence, and then reexamines the meaning of Article 13 of Taiwan’s Constitution to bring out the standard of review when the application of the law imposes a substantial burden on religious objector. The second part will compare the opinion of Obergefell v. Hodge and Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 748, focusing on the influence of different values on the constitutional unenumerated rights interpretations and difference between secular (civil) and religious marriage. We find that constitutional unenumerated rights interpretations need to keep up with the times. In addition, the meaning of secular and religious marriage is related but not necessarily the same. That is, various aspects of social life of same-sex couples, such as employment and trade, may conflict with religious objectors. To highlight this issue, this thesis attempts to provide a few examples of potentially conflicting situations in Taiwan by referring to cases that have already occurred in the U.S. and relevant court decisions. Reviewing cases in which wedding vendors (such as florists, photographers and wedding planners) and religious objectors (colleges, adoption, foster agencies, etc.) refuse to provide service to same-sex couples, the courts seemed to have developed a categorized method when making rulings. In particular, two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, have had a significant impact on the conflict and reconciliation between same-sex marriage and religious liberty. On the one hand, some courts held that religious objectors’ refusal to serve same-sex couples violated anti-discrimination laws. As the prevention of discrimination against same-sex couples qualifies as a compelling state interest, it is therefore weighed against the freedom of religion. On the other hand, some courts held that when the government applies anti-discrimination laws, it is obligated to follow the Free Exercise Clause and remain neutral and tolerant towards religious beliefs. This thesis justifies that American freedom of religion theory enforcement experience is worthy of reference to Taiwan, and that it will introduce “categorization of balancing test” to handle the clash between same-sex marriage and religious freedom. Based on the "Nature of Things" of the exercise of religions, I will illustrate a concept of a hierarchical protection structure, called “the hierarchy protection of religious freedom”. The court should have a different standard of review depending on the religious protection area involved. This thesis then concludes that the governmental policy serves a compelling state interest—the eradication of sexual-orientation discrimination and protection of same-sex marriage—and that the policy properly applied. 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 core areas of religious freedom or exercise closely related to religious beliefs, provided that such religious exemption does not harm same-sex couples, allowing religious groups and people to refuse to provide services to same-sex couples.
Reference:	一、中文文獻（一）專書江宜樺（2000），自由主義、民族主義與國家認同，臺北：揚智文化。吳庚、陳淳文（2017），憲法理論與政府體制，5版，臺北：自版。李惠宗（2019），憲法要義，8版，臺北：元照。東吳公法中心憲法小組主編（2018），憲法講義，臺北：元照。林秀雄（2018），親屬法講義，4版，臺北：元照。林紀東（1993），中華民國憲法逐條釋義（第一冊）， 7版，臺北：三民。法治斌、董保城（2020），憲法新論，7版，臺北：元照。荊知仁（1992），美國憲法與憲政，2版，臺北：三民。許志雄、陳銘祥、蔡茂寅、周志宏、蔡宗珍（2008），現代憲法論，2版，臺北：元照。許育典（2013），宗教自由與宗教法，2版，臺北：元照。許育典（2017），同性婚姻、同性平權與宗教自由，臺北：元照。許育典（2018），憲法，8版，臺北：元照。湯德宗（2016），對話憲法‧憲法對話（下），3版，臺北：天宏。楊惠南（2005），愛與信仰—台灣同志佛教徒之平權運動與深層心理學，臺北：商周。蕭郁溏（2017），性別力：Gender power，臺中：白象文化。繆全吉（1989），中國制憲史資料彙編—憲法篇，臺北：國史館。（二）中文譯書 Alibe Sachs著（2020），陳毓奇、陳禮工譯，斷臂上的花朵，2版，臺北：麥田。 Jürgen Habermas著、曹衛東等譯（2002），公共領域的結構轉型，臺北：聯經。 Lawrence M. Friedman著（2016），劉宏恩、王敏銓譯，美國法律史，臺北：聯經。（三）專書論文王和雄（1998），憲法保障宗教信仰自由之意義與界限，收於：司法院大法官釋憲五十週年紀念論文集，收於：司法院大法官書記處編，司法院大法官釋憲50週年紀念論文集，頁149-223，臺北：司法院。吳志光（2006），憲法保障宗教自由之意義—本土化觀察之嘗試，收於：蘇永欽編，部門憲法，頁647-675，臺北：元照。李建良（2020），民事審判與裁判憲法審查：基本權效力的體系思維，收於：陳新民教授六秩晉五壽辰文集編輯委員會編，法治國家的原理與實踐—陳新民教授六秩晉五壽辰文集（上冊），頁309-364，臺北：新學林。李建良（2000），基本權利與國家保護義務，收於：憲法理論與實踐（二），頁59-125，臺北：學林。林明昕（2017），憲法規範下的社會正義：以基本國策之規範效力為中心，收於：許宗力編，追尋社會國—社會正義之理論與制度實踐，頁3-60，臺北：國立臺灣大學出版中心。法治斌（2003），政教分離、出版自由與公共論壇—試評論Rosenberger v. Rector & visitor of University of Virginia，收於：法治國家與表意自由—憲法專論（三），頁319-339，2003年5月，臺北：正典。范文清（2016），論宗教團體組織之規範與自由—從釋字第573號解釋談起，收於：東吳大學法學院法律與宗教研究中心編，2015東吳法律與宗教論叢，頁185-204，臺北：東吳大學法學院。范秀羽（2016），從查理周刊等攻擊事件思考移民社會中基本權保障之潛在問題，收於：東吳大學法學院法律與宗教研究中心編，2015東吳法律與宗教論叢，頁401-442，臺北：東吳大學法學院。孫迺翊（2017），從隔離、保護到平等參與社會：以身心障礙者權利公約檢視我國憲法及身心障礙者權益保障法之平等原則內涵，收於：許宗力編，追尋社會國—社會正義之理論與制度實踐，頁293-361，臺北：國立臺灣大學出版中心。莊世同（2017），論平等與法治：評司法院釋字第728號解釋女子不得為祭祀公業派下成員案，收於：許宗力編，追尋社會國—社會正義之理論與制度實踐，頁127-163，臺北：國立臺灣大學出版中心。陳清秀（2018），宗教教育導入中小學義務教育之法律上可行性分析，收於：城仲模教授八秩華誕祝壽論文集編輯委員會編，台灣公法學的墊基與前瞻—城仲模教授八秩華誕祝壽論文集（上冊），頁195-228，臺北：新學林。湯德宗（2009），違憲審查基準體系建構初探—「階層式比例原則」構想，憲法解釋之理論與實務，收於：廖福特編，憲法解釋之理論與實務（六）（下冊），2009年，頁581-660，臺北：中央研究院法律學研究所籌備處。湯德宗（2020），司法院大法官釋字第748號解釋解析，收於：虞平編，法治流變及制度構建：兩岸法律四十年之發展—孔傑榮教授九秩壽辰祝壽文集，頁200-229，臺北：元照。程明修，論基本權保障之「禁止保護不足原則」，收於：憲法體制與法治行政：城仲模教授六秩華誕祝壽論文集（一），頁219-274，臺北：三民。黃昭元（2017），從平等理論的演進檢討實質平等觀在憲法適用上的難題，收於：李建良編，憲法解釋之理論與實務（九）：憲政主義與人權理論的移植與深耕，頁271-312，臺北：中央研究院法律學研究所。廖元豪（2020），同婚專法之後：婚姻平權 vs. 宗教自由，收於：王道維等合著，當耶穌遇見同志，頁203，新北：真哪噠。廖元豪（2009），建構以平等公民權（Equal Citizenship）為基礎的憲法權利理論途徑—對傳統基本權理論之反省，收於：廖福特編，憲法解釋之理論與實務（六）（下冊），2009年，頁365-428，臺北：中央研究院法律學研究所籌備處。廖元豪（2013），與眾不同，抑或一視同仁？—多元文化教育、自由主義、與平等權之關係，收於：國立政治大學法學院公法學中心編，公法研究的世代對話：法治斌教授逝世十週年紀念論文集，頁103-141，臺北：新學林。廖元豪（2020），上帝不雇用同志？—雇主得否以宗教理由對同志差別待遇？，收於：陳淳文編，法的理性—吳庚教授紀念論文集（下冊），頁697-717，臺北：中央研究院法律學研究所。謝世民（2014），德沃金論平等義務與守法義務，收於：謝世民編，以平等為本的自由主義：德沃金法政哲學研究，頁237-278，臺北：開學文化。鍾秉正（2010），憲法宗教自由權之保障－兼評大法官釋字第573號解釋，收於：社會法與基本權保障，頁271-339，臺北：元照。（四）期刊文獻吳志光（2017），從本土化的宗教現象論宗教的定義—兼評最高行政法院104年度判字第10號判決，台灣法學雜誌，333期，頁88-94。吳志光（2019），公民投票提案的合憲性審查—以比較法的觀察及我國法制的檢討為核心，憲政時代，45卷1期，頁1-42。吳睿恩（2020），爾愛其羊，我愛其禮？──同性婚姻爭議中的議題立場與制度選擇，基礎法學與人權研究通訊，26期，頁3-15。吳德華（2014），美國非營利組織課稅制度之探討—以內地稅法§501（c）（3）組織為例，高大法學論叢，9卷2期，頁177-238。李建良（2018），法學方法與基本權解釋方法導論，人文及社會科學集刊，30卷2期，頁237-277。周志宏（2000），高等教育階段中的宗教教育問題—教育基本法第六條與私立學校法第九條之檢討，法令月刊，51卷10期，頁687-718。官曉薇（2019），臺灣民主化後同志人權保障之變遷—法律與社會運動的觀點，中研院法學期刊，2019年特刊1，頁551-615。林榮光（2011），法律兼顧容納宗教自由之理據與審查標準的再省思—多元文化主義觀點，憲政時代，37卷1期，頁75-128。邱晨（2019），宗教團體之所得與稅捐優惠，興大法學，25期，2019年5月，頁43-86。施慧玲（2020），同性伴侶組成家庭的權利─收養敘事分析，月旦法學教室，208期，頁55-63。范文清（2012），宗教團體之地價稅優惠及信賴保護──最高行政法院100年度判字第811號判決評析，月旦法學雜誌，206期，頁21-35。宮文祥（2017），以實質正當程序論非憲法明文之基本權－以同性婚為例，台灣法學雜誌，317期，頁85-98。宮文祥（2017），國家對於宗教自由保護之義務—美國（憲）法之觀點，台灣法學雜誌，333期，頁107-113。張文貞（2014），性別平等之內涵與定位：兩公約與憲法之比較，台大法學論叢，43卷特刊，頁771-838。張宏誠（2011），雖不獲亦不惑矣－美國同性婚姻平等保障司法判決之回顧與展望，成大法學，22期，頁143-223。許育典、周敬凡（2002），論憲法上的宗教自由，成大宗教與文化學報，2期，頁53-78。許育典、陳頌揚（2017），宗教性院校拒絕同志入學案的憲法爭議：以台南神學院為例，中原財經法學，頁157-204。許宗力（2003），基本權利：第三講—基本權主體，月旦法學教室，4期，頁80-88。陳仲嶙（2018），我國憲法上未列舉權利之發展，憲政時代，44卷2期，2018年10月，頁51-101。陳昭如（2015），沒拜沒保佑，有拜也沒保佑？—從女性主義觀點論釋字728中的權力與權利，台灣法學雜誌，270期，2015年4月，頁49-51。陳淑芳（2018），司法釋憲權與立法權之分際─評司法院釋字第748號解釋，法令月刊，69卷4期，頁26-55。陳清秀（2018），同性生活伴侶之權益保障問題探討－釋字第748號解釋評析（上），植根雜誌，34卷4期，頁352-360。陳閔翔（2009），論德沃金的民主理論：一個憲政自由主義的解讀，台灣政治學刊，13卷2期，頁171-223。陳銘祥（1997），宗教立法與宗教自由，月旦法學雜誌，24期，頁29-34。曾品傑（2017），為人抬轎的大法官解釋第七四八號，月旦法學雜誌，266期，頁69-86。黃昭元（2000），信上帝者下監獄？—從司法院釋字第490號解釋論宗教自由與兵役義務的衝突，台灣本土法學雜誌，8期，頁30-45。黃昭元（2000），釋迦牟尼，生日快樂—訂佛誕日為國定紀念日是否違憲，月旦法學雜誌，58期，頁16-17。黃昭元（2004），憲法權利限制的司法審查標準：美國類型化多元標準模式的比較分析，臺大法學論叢，33卷3期，頁46-136。黃昭元（2009），平等權與自由權競合案件之審查—從釋字第649號解釋談起，法學新論，7期，頁17-43。葉啟洲（2015），民事交易關係上之反歧視原則—德國一般平等待遇法之借鏡，東吳法律時報，26卷3期，頁143-200。廖元豪（1996），美國「種族優惠性差別待遇」(Racial Affirmative Action)合憲性之研究—兼論平等原則之真義，東吳法律學報，9卷2期，頁1-44。廖元豪（2005），實質平等，月旦法學教室，27期，頁38-41。廖元豪（2006），宗教自由：第一講—憲法宗教自由之意義、體系與價值，月旦法學教室，44期，頁42-52。廖元豪（2006），宗教自由：第二講—狹義宗教自由，月旦法學教室，46期，頁30-39。廖元豪（2006），宗教自由：第三講—政教分離（一），月旦法學教室，48期，頁30-36。廖元豪（2008），平等權：第一講—憲法平等權之意義，月旦法學教室，68期，頁48-58。廖元豪（2008），高深莫測，抑或亂中有序？論現任大法官在基本權利案件中的「審查基準」，中研院法學期刊，2期，頁211-274。廖元豪（2011），馴化並面對族群歧視—為制定「族群平等法」而倡議，月旦法學雜誌，189期，頁38-50。廖元豪（2015），革命即將成功，同志仍須努力─簡評美國聯邦最高法院同性婚姻之判決，月旦法學雜誌，243期，頁20-37。廖元豪（2017），宗教自由與同性婚姻：真的衝突？或假的對立？，台灣法學雜誌，317期，頁100-107。鄧學仁（2018），同性婚姻法制化之親子關係，月旦法學雜誌，283期，頁40-52。鄧學仁（2019），論司法院釋字第748號解釋施行法，全國律師，23卷6期，頁17-26。蕭文生（2011），信仰宗教自由，台灣法學雜誌，179期，頁75-79。（五）學位論文左涵湄（2004），論宗教行為自由之保障，東吳大學法律學系研究所碩士論文。林榮光（2009），國民教育階段中的宗教自由—多元文化主義的觀點，國立政治大學法學院碩士論文。許家豪（2018），性傾向仇恨性言論管制倡議，東吳大學法律學系碩士論文。陳頌揚（2017），同志族群權益與宗教自由的憲法衝突—兼評台南神學院拒絕同志入學案，成功大學法律學系碩士論文。黃馨雯（2019），基本權水平效力：弱勢保障之觀點，臺灣大學法律學院法律學系碩士論文。（六）研討會文獻林榮光（2020），自願性原則作為解決宗教團體自主權與個人基本權之衝突的途徑─評歐洲人權法院Fernández Martínez v. Spain之判決，第七回法律與宗教研討會，東吳大學法學院法律與宗教研究中心主辦，2020年12月14日。（七）政府相關文書、報告立法院105年12月26日司法法制委員會審查通過之民法修正草案，取得網址：http://acts.pct.org.tw/PCTContent/ModuleControl/downfile/20161226%e6%b0%91%e6%b3%95%e4%bf%ae%e8%a8%82%e5%af%a9%e6%9f%a5%e9%80%9a%e9%81%8e%e6%a2%9d%e6%96%87.pdf。立法院公報（2019年），108卷48期。合法收出養媒合服務者名單（2018），衛生福利部社會及家庭署，取得網址：https://www.sfaa.gov.tw/SFAA/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeid=416&pid=2662。消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約（CEDAW）中華民國（臺灣）第2次國家報告：審查委員會總結意見與建議，行政院性別平等會，取得網址：https://gec.ey.gov.tw/Page/B4F978699BF76C15/dbdcf43d-66c4-4b7a-9791-b6dd9dcb33c5。消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約（CEDAW）第3次國家報告審查委員會總結意見與建議（2018），行政院性別平等會，取得網址：https://gec.ey.gov.tw/Page/DEBC79210F1AC20D/37003517-ef92-4be2-adfd-3456702cb1ed。審查各機關對CEDAW第2次國家報告總結意見與建議（第33、34、35點）初步回應會議紀錄（第2輪）（2019），行政院性別平等會，取得網址：https://gec.ey.gov.tw/Page/B4F978699BF76C15/42d37932-eda5-44a5-b4ef-e3b57355a745。（八）網路資源官曉薇（2018），面對反同婚公投「多數決困境」，同性戀社群如何扭轉法律劣勢？，關鍵評論網，取用網址：https://www.thenewslens.com/article/106967?fbclid=IwAR0z5ZjyC_EJt8BGDicUxsAO9WxC9SSQuTsFj-Z9PxxQleQTSoLpHTzdvFQ。喀飛（2015），台灣同志運動的歷史回顧，苦勞網，取用網址：https://www.coolloud.org.tw/node/83827。楊國文（2015），法務部擬同性伴侶法，民團互嗆，自由時報，取用網址：https://features.ltn.com.tw/japanese/article/paper/901508。王道維（2018），同婚法案推動過程中，不同族群的核心關懷與法律爭議，風傳媒，取用網址：https://www.storm.mg/article/460601。釋昭慧（2016），立法院公聽會支持同性婚姻發言全文，自由時報，取用網址：https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/breakingnews/1897485。佳琦（2019），專訪釋昭慧：有人說同志跟女性業障重，但說這種話的人，才是業障重，性別力，取用網址：https://womany.net/read/article/21556。林上祚，與宗教兼容？同婚專法增訂「宗教自由不受影響」條款，風傳媒，取用網址：https://www.storm.mg/article/975185。陳美華（2018），同婚公投：違憲、不公平戰役、公領域的陷落，報導者，2018年11月25日，取用網址：https://www.twreporter.org/a/opinion-2018-election-referendum-same-sex-marriage-2。台灣同志諮詢熱線協會（2019），同志可以收養小孩嗎？我可以，我們不行！，台灣同志諮詢熱線協會，取用網址：https://hotline.org.tw/news/2901。長老教會高雄中會（2019），長老教會高雄中會發聲明堅持一男一女婚姻不會為同性證婚，基督教論壇報，取用網址：https://www.ct.org.tw/1342777?fbclid=IwAR3pJGJoOlh1jwGUknlz9J0NCKMQpL6noM5RXjjlgBj1HDDw1S4ZMzbOZTc。台灣長老教會（2014），台灣基督長老教會同性婚姻議題牧函，取用網址：http://www.pct.org.tw/ab_doc.aspx?DocID=118。羊正鈺（2014），首位從神學院畢業男同志：不會放棄在這條路上繼續努力，關鍵評論網，取用網址：https://www.thenewslens.com/article/5329。張宏誠（2020），不祇是「性別」也只能是「性別」，上報，取用網址：https://www.upmedia.mg/news_info.php?SerialNo=89677。德國之聲（2020），台灣同婚合法一周年：污名化與歧視未消，近3成民眾認為「同婚對社會有負面影響」，風傳媒，取用網址：https://www.storm.mg/article/2645528?page=1。中華福音神學院（2020），「認識華神」，取用網址：https://wp.ces.org.tw/%e8%aa%8d%e8%ad%98%e8%8f%af%e7%a5%9e/。中華福音神學院（2021），招生簡章，取用網址：https://wp.ces.org.tw/%e6%8b%9b%e7%94%9f/%e7%a5%9e%e5%ad%b8%e7%a2%a9%e5%a3%ab%e7%a7%91/。二、英文文獻（一）專書 Anderson, Ryan T. 2015. Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom. District of Columbia, D.C.:Regnery Publishing. Ball, Carlos A. 2017. The First Amendment and LGBT Equality: A Contentious History. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press. Ball, Carlos A., Jane S. Schacter, Douglas NeJaime, and William B. Rubenstein. 2017. Cases and Materials on Sexuality, Gender Identity, and the Law. 6th ed. St. Paul, MN West Academic Publishing. Chemerinsky, Erwin. 2011. Constitutional law－Principle and Policies. New York, N.Y.:Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. Chemerinsky, Erwin. 2017. Constitutional Law. 8th ed. New York, N.Y.:Wolters Kluwer. Choper, Jesse H., Richard H. Fallon Jr., Yale Kamisar, and Steven H. Shiffrin. 2012. Constitutional Law-Cases-Comment-Questions. 11th ed. Minnesota: West Academic Publishing. Conkle, Daniel O. 2003. Constitutional Law: The Religion Clauses. New York, N.Y: Foundation Press. Dworkin, Ronald. 1977. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press. Dworkin, Ronald. 2000. Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality. Cambridge. MA:Harvard University Press. Dworkin, Ronald. 2013. Religion Without God. Cambridge. MA:Harvard University Press. Eisgruber, Christopher L., and Lawrence G. Sager. 2007. Religious Freedom and the Constitution. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press. Ely, John Hart. 1980. Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press. Gill, Emily R. 2019. Free Exercise of Religion in the Liberal Polity Conflicting Interpretations. New York, N.Y. :Palgrave Macmillan. McConnell, Michael W., John H. Garvey, and Thomas C. Berg. 2011. Religion and the Constitution. 3rd th. New York, N.Y.:Wolters Kluwer. Monsma, Stephen V., and Stanley W. Carlson-Thies. 2015. Free to Serve: Protecting the Religious Freedom of Faith-Based Organizations. Michigan, MI: Brazos Press. Nussbaum, Martha C. 2010. From Disgust to Humanity: Sexual Orientation & Constitutional Law. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press. Ravitch, Frank S. 2016. Freedom’s Edge: Religious Freedom, Sexual Freedom, and the Future of America. New York, N.Y: Cambridge University Press. Stone, Geoffrey R. 2017. Sex and the Constitution: Sex, Religion, and Law from America`s Origins to the Twenty-First Century. New York, N.Y: Liveright Publishing Corporation. Stone, Geoffrey R., Louis Michael Seidman, Cass R. Sunstein, Mark V. Tushnet, and Pamela S. Karlan. 2017. Constitutional Law. 8th ed. New York, N.Y.:Wolters Kluwer. Sullivan, Kathleen M., and Noah Feldman. 2019. Constitutional Law 20th ed. St. Paul, MN:Foundation Press. Sunstein, Cass R. 2014. Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas. New York, N.Y.: Simon & Schuster. Tribe, Laurence. 1978. American Constitutional Law. New York, N.Y.: Foundation Press. Tribe, Laurence. 1988 American Constitutional Law. 2d ed. New York, N.Y.: Foundation Press. （二）專書論文 Barak, Aharon. 2001. Constitutional Human Rights and Private Law. Pp. 13-42 in Human Rights and Private Law, edited by Dan Friedmann and Daphne Barak-Ere. Portland, OR:Hart Publishing. Case, Mary Anne. 2011. The Peculiar Stake U.S. Protestants Have in the Question of State Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages. Pp. 302-321 in After Secular Law, edited by Winnifred Fallers Sullivan, Robert A. Yelle, Mateo Taussig-Rubbo, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Conkle Daniel O. 2021. Equality, Animus, and Expressive and Religious Freedom Under the American Constitution: Masterpiece Cakeshop and Beyond. Pp. 43-72 in Les Mutations de la Liberté d`Expression en Droit Français et Étranger, edited by Gilles J. Guglielmi. Paris, Éditions Panthéon-Assas. Fedtke, Jörg. 2007. Germany Drittwirkung in Germany. Pp. 125-156 in Human Rights and the Private Sphere Vol 1: A Comparative Study, edited by Jörg Fedtke and Dawn Oliver. New York, NY : Routledge-Cavendish. Feldblum, Chai R. 2008. Moral Conflict and Conflicting Liberties. Pp. 123-156 in Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, edited by Douglas Laycock, Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., and Robin Fretwell Wilson. Maryland, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Flanders, Chad Religious Organizations and the Analogy to Political Parties. Pp. 102-122 in The Rise of Corporate Religious Liberty, edited by Micah Schwartzman, Chad Flanders, and Zoë Robinson. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Garnett, Richard W. 2016. The Freedom of the Church: (Toward) an Exposition, Translation, and Defense. Pp. 39-62 in The Rise of Corporate Religious Liberty, edited by Micah Schwartzman, Chad Flanders, and Zoë Robinson. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Haider-Markel, Donald P., and Jami Taylor. 2016. Two Step Forward, One Step Back: The Slow Forward Dance of LGBT Rights in America. Pp. 42-72 in After Marriage Equality: The Future of LGBT Rights, edited by Carlos A. Ball, New York, NY: New York University Press. Hertzke, Allen D. 2015. A Madisonian Framework for Applying Constitutional Principles on Religion. Pp.3-30 in Religious Freedom in America: Constitutional Roots and Contemporary Challenges, edited by Allen D. Hertzke. Oklahoma, OK:University of Oklahoma Press. Kmiec, Douglas W. 2008. Same-Sex Marriage and the Coming Antidiscrimination Campaigns Against Religion. Pp. 103-121 in Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, edited by Douglas Laycock, Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., and Robin Fretwell Wilson. Maryland, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Knauer, Nancy J. 2016. LGBT Elders: Making the Case for Equity in Aging, in After Marriage Equality: The Future of LGBT Rights. Pp. 105-126 in After Marriage Equality: The Future of LGBT Rights, edited by Carlos A. Ball, New York, NY: New York University Press. Laycock, Douglas. 2008. Afterword. Pp. 189-207 in Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, edited by Douglas Laycock, Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., and Robin Fretwell Wilson. Maryland, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Laycock, Douglas. 2016. The Campaign against Religious Liberty. Pp. 231-256 in The Rise of Corporate Religious Liberty, edited by Micah Schwartzman, Chad Flanders, and Zoë Robinson. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Lupu, Ira C., and Robert W. Tuttle. 2016. Religious Exemptions and the Limited Relevance of Corporate Identity. Pp. 373-398 in The Rise of Corporate Religious Liberty, edited by Micah Schwartzman, Chad Flanders, and Zoë Robinson. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Marcosson, Sam. 2009. The Special Status of Religion Under the First Amendment…and What it means for Gay Right and Antidiscrimination laws. Pp. 135-160 in Moral Argument, Religion, and Same-sex Marriage, edited by Gordon A. Babst, Emily R. Gill & Jason A. Pierceson eds. Lanham, Md: Lexington Books. McClain, Linda C. 2016. Civil Marriage for Same-Sex Couples, “Moral Disapproval,” and Tensions between Religious Liberty and Equality. Pp. 87-131 in Religious Freedom and Gay Rights: Emerging Conflicts in the United States and Europe, edited by Timothy Shah, Thomas Farr, and Jack Friedman. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. NeJaime, Douglas, and Reva Siegel. 2018. Conscience Wars in Transnational Perspective: Religious Liberty, Third-Party Harm, and Pluralism. Pp. 187-219 in The Conscience Wars: Rethinking the Balance between Religion, Identity, and Equality, edited by Susanna Mancini and Michel Rosenfeld. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. NeJaime, Douglas, and Reva Siegel. 2018. Religious Accommodation, and Its Limits, in a Pluralist Society. Pp. 69-81 in Religious Freedom, LGBT Rights, and the Prospects for Common Ground, edited by Robin Fretwell Wilson and William N. Eskridge, Jr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reid, Charles J., Jr. 2008. Marriage: Its Relationship to Religion, law, and the State. Pp. 157-188 in Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, edited by Douglas Laycock, Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., and Robin Fretwell Wilson. Maryland, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Stern, Marc D. 2008. Same-Sex Marriage and the Churches. Pp. 1-57 in Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, edited by Douglas Laycock, Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., and Robin Fretwell Wilson. Maryland, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Struening, Karen. 2009. Lookimg for Liberty and Defining Marriage in Three Same-Sex Marriage Cases. Pp. 19-47 in Moral Argument, Religion, and Same-sex Marriage, edited by Gordon A. Babst, Emily R. Gill & Jason A. Pierceson eds. Lanham, Md: Lexington Books. Turley, Jonathan. 2008. An Unholy Union: Same-Sex Marriage and the Use of Governmental Programs to Penalize Religious Groups with Unpopular Practices. Pp. 59-76 in Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, edited by Douglas Laycock, Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., and Robin Fretwell Wilson. Maryland, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. West, Robin. 2016. Freedom of the Church and Our Endangered Civil Rights: Exiting the Social Contract. Pp. 399-418, in The Rise of Corporate Religious Liberty, edited by Micah Schwartzman, Chad Flanders, and Zoë Robinson. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Wilson, Robin Fretwell. 2016. Bargaining for Religious Accommodations: Same-Sex Marriage and LGBT Rights after Hobby Lobby. Pp. 257-284 in The Rise of Corporate Religious Liberty, edited by Micah Schwartzman, Chad Flanders, and Zoë Robinson. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Wilson, Robin Fretwell. 2016. The Politics of Accommodation: The American Experience with Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom. Pp. 132-180 in Religious Freedom and Gay Rights: Emerging Conflicts in the United States and Europe, edited by Timothy Shah, Thomas Farr, and Jack Friedman. New York, NY:Oxford University Press. （三）期刊論文 Balkin, Jack. 1997. The Constitution of Status. Yale Law Journal 106:2313-2374. Barker, Paul. 2019. Note. 2019. Religious Exemptions and the Vocational Dimension of Work. Columbia Law Review 119:169-204. Beery, Brendan. 2019. Prophylactic Free Exercise: The First Amendment and Religion in a Post-Kennedy World. Albany Law Review 82:121-155. Berg, Thomas C. 2010. What Same-Sex Marriage and Religious-Liberty Claims Have in Common. Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy 5:206–235. Berg, Thomas C. 2013. Progressive Arguments for Religious Organizational Freedom: Reflections on the HHS Mandate. Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues 21:279-334. Berg, Thomas C. 2015. Religious Accommodation and the Welfare State. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender 38:103-151. Berg, Thomas C. 2018. Masterpiece Cakeshop: A Romer for Religious Objectors?. Cato Supreme Court Review 2018:139-170. Bogen, David S. 1997. Generally Applicable Laws and the First Amendment. Southwestern Law Review 26:201-258. Bonauto, Mary L., and Jon W. Davidson. 2018. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission: What Was and Wasn’t Decided.Asc Supreme Court Review 2017-2018:17-48. Brown, Matthew A. Note. 2019. Masterpiece Cakeshop: A Formula for Legislative Accommodations of Religion. Akron Law Review 53:177-216. Carpenter, Dale. 2013. Windsor Products: Equal Protection from Animus, Supreme Court Review 2013:183-285. Choper, Jesse H. 1982. Defining "Religion" in the First Amendment. University of Illinois Law Review 1982:579-613. Colker, Ruth. 1986. Anti-Subordination Above All: Sex, Race, and Equal Protection. New York University Law Review 61:1003-1066. Conkle, Daniel O. 2014. Evolving Values, Animus, and Same-sex marriage. Indiana Law Journal 89:27-42. Danchin, Peter G. 2008. Of Prophets and Proselytes: Freedom of Religion and the Conflict of Rights in International Law. Harvard International Law Journal 49:249-321. Daya, Terri R., and Danielle Weatherby. 2017 Contemplating Masterpiece Cakeshop. 74 Washington and Lee Law Review 74:86-102. Eduardo M. Peñalver, Note. 1997. The Concept of Religion. Yale Law Journal 107:791-822. Eric Bihlear, Note, 2018. A Cake by Any Other Name: An Analysis Of Masterpiece Cakeshop and the Delicate Balance Between Sexual Autonomy and Religious Freedom, Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion 19:355-382. Fallon, Richard H. Jr. 2007. Strict Judicial Scrutiny. UCLA Law Review 54:1267-1337. Flanders, Chad, and Sean Oliveira. 2019. An Incomplete Masterpiece. UCLA Law Review 66:157-176. Freeman, George C. III. 1983. The Misguided Search for the Constitutional Definition of "Religion". Georgetown Law Journal 71:1519-1565. Gedicks, Frederick Mark, and Rebecca G. Van Tassell. 2014. RFRA Exemptions from the Contraception Mandate: An Unconstitutional Accommodation of Religion. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 49:343-384. Gilreath, Shannon, and Arley Ward. 2016. Same-Sex Marriage, Religious Accommodation, and the Race Analogy. Vermont Law Review 41:237-278. Greenawalt, Kent. 1984. Religion as a Concept in Constitutional Law. California Law Review 72: 753-816. Habermas, Jürgen. 2006. Religion in the Public Sphere. European Journal of Philosophy 14:1-22. Harrell, Rodney W. 2019. State Religious Free-Exercise Defenses to. Nondiscrimination Laws: Still Relevant After Masterpiece Cakeshop. UMKC Law Review 87:297-333. Hermann, Donald H. J. 2016. Extending the Fundamental Right of Marriage to Same-Sex Couples: The United States Supreme Court Decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Indiana Law Review 49:367-396. Horwitz, Paul. 2009. Church as First Amendment Institutions: Of Sovereignty and Spheres. Harvard Civil Rights-civil Liberties Law Review 44:79-131. Hutchison, Blaine L. 2018. Protecting Religious Pluralism: How The Liberty That Supports Same-sex Marriage Protects Religious Convictions. Regent University Law Review 30:461-482. Isaacson, Eric Alan. 2012. Are Same-Sex Marriages Really a Threat to Religious Liberty?. Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 8:123-154. Kelso, R. Randall. 1992. Filling Gaps in the Supreme Court`s Approach to Constitutional Review of Legislation: Standards, Ends, and Burdens Reconsidered. South Texas Law Review 33-2:493-600. Kelso, Randall R. 2002. Standards of Review Under the Equal Protection Clause and Related Constitutional Doctrines Protecting Individual Rights: The "Base Plus Six" Model and Modern Supreme Court Practice. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 4: 225-259. Kendrick, Leslie, and Micah Schwartzman. 2018. The Etiquette of Animus. Harvard Law Review 132:133-170. Knauer, Nancy J. 2016. Religious Exemptions, Marriage Equality, and the Establishment of Religion. University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review 84:749-795. Knauer, Nancy J. 2017. LGBT Older Adults: Chosen Family and Caregiving. Journal of Law and Religion 31:150-168. Koppelman, Andrew. 2015. Gay Rights, Religious Accommodations, and the Purpose of an Antidiscrimination Law. Southern California Law Review 88:619-659. Kreit, Alex. 2010. Making Sense of Facial and As-Applied Challenges. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 18:657-707. Laycock, Douglas, and Thomas C. Berg. 2013. Protecting Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty. Virginia Law Review In Brief 99:1-9. Laycock, Douglas. 1990. Formal, Substantive, and Disaggregated Neutrality Toward Religion. DePaul Law Review 39:993-1018. Laycock, Douglas. 2014. Religious Liberty and the Culture Wars. University of Illinois Law Review 2014:839-880. Laycock, Douglas. 2018. The Wedding-vendor Cases. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 41:49-66. Lin, Rung-Guang. 2017. Towards Religious Institutionalism? The Future of the Regulation of Religious Institutions in Taiwan. National Taiwan University Law Review. 12-1:87-125. Lupu, Ira C., and Robert Tuttle. 2002. The Distinctive Place of Religious Entities in Our Constitutional Order. Villanova Law Review 47(1):37-92. Mahoney, Kathleen. 2009 Hate Speech, Equality, and The State of Canadian Law. Wake Forest Law Review 44:321-352. McConnell, Michael W. 1992. Accommodation of Religion: An Update and a Response to the Critics. The George Washington Law Review 60:685-712. Moon, Richard. 2012. Freedom of Religion Under the Canadian Charter of Rights: The Limits of State Neutrality. University of British Columbia Law Review 45(2):497-549. Movsesian, Mark L. 2019. Masterpiece Cakeshop and the Future of Religious Freedom. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 42:711-750. NeJaime, Douglas, and Reva B. Siegel. 2015. Conscience Wars: Complicity-Based Conscience Claims in Religion and Politics. Yale Law Journal 124:2516-2591. NeJaime, Douglas, and Reva B. Siegel. 2018. Religious Exemptions and Antidiscrimination Law in Masterpiece Cakeshop. Yale Law Journal Forum 128: 201-224. NeJaime, Douglas. 2012 Marriage Inequality: Same-Sex Relationships, Religious Exemptions, and the Production of Sexual Orientation Discrimination. California Law Review 100:1169-1238. Note. 1978. Toward a Constitutional Definition of Religion. Harvard Law Review 91:1056-1089. Oleske, James M. Jr. 2015. The Evolution of Accommodation: Comparing the Unequal Treatment of Religious Objections to Interracial and Same-Sex Marriages. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 50:99-152. Ravitch, Frank S. 2016. Be Careful What You Wish for: Why Hobby Lobby Weakens Religious Freedom. BYU Law Review 2016:55-116. Ravitch, Frank S. 2019. Complicity and Discrimination. Syracuse Law Review 69:491-541. Ravitch, Frank S., and Brett G. Scharffs. 2018. Piece of Cake?. Judicature 102:67 75. Robin West. 1990. Progressive and Conservative Constitutionalism. Michigan Law Review 88:641-721. Sanders, Steve. 2019. Dignity and Social Meaning: Obergefell, Windsor, and Lawrence as. Constitutional Dialogue. Fordham Law Review 87:2069-2123. Schragger, Richard, and Micah Schwartzman. 2013. Against Religious Institutionalism. Virginia Law Review 99:917-985. Schube, Curtis. 2016. A New Era in the Battle Between Religious Liberty and Smith: Sogi Laws, Their Threat to Religious Liberty, and How to Combat Their Trend. Drake Law Review 64: 883-917. Sepper, Elizabeth. 2014. Doctoring Discrimination in the Same-Sex Marriage Debates. Indiana Law Journal 89:703-762. Sepper, Elizabeth. 2015. Free Exercise Lochnerism. Columbia Law Review 115:1453-1519. Strang, Lee J. 2002. The Meaning of “Religion” in the First Amendment. Duquesne Law Review 40:181-240. Sunstein, Cass R. 1994. The Anticaste Principle. Michigan Law Review 92:2410-2455. Sunstein, Cass R. 1996. Foreword: Leaving Things Undecided. Harvard Law Review 110:4-101. Sunstein, Cass R. 2007. If People Would Be Outraged by Their Rulings, Should Judges Care?. Stanford Law Review 60:155-212. Tribe, Laurence H. 2015. Equal dignity: Speaking its name. Harvard Law Review Forum 129:16-32. Velte, Kyle C. 2018. Why the Religious Right Can`t Have Its (Straight Wedding) Cake and Eat It Too: Breaking the Preservation-Through-Transformation Dynamic in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality. 36:67-94. Washburn, Rachel Alyce. 2015. Freedom of Marriage: An Analysis of Positive and negative rights. Washington University Jurisprudence Review 8: 87-114. Weiss, Jonathan. 1964. Privilege, Posture and Protection-"Religion" in the Law. Yale Law Journal 73:593-623. Wilson, Robin Fretwell, and Anthony Michael Kreis. 2014. Embracing Compromise: Marriage Equality And Religious Liberty In The Political Process. Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law 15:538-600. Wilson, Robin Fretwell. 2012. The Calculus of Accommodation: Contraception, Abortion, Same-Sex Marriage, and Other Clashes Between Religion and the State. Boston College Law Review 53:1417-1513. Wilson, Robin Fretwell. 2014. Marriage Of Necessity: Same-sex Marriage And Religious Liberty Protections. Case Western Reserve Law Review 64:1161-1266. Woods, Jordan Blair. 2019. Religious Exemptions and LGBTQ Child Welfare. Minnesota Law Review 103:2343-2422. Yoshino, Kenji. 2015. A New Birth of Freedom?: Obergefell v. Hodges. Harvard Law Review 129:147-179. （四）網路資源 Bachman, Eric. 2020. Supreme Court Issues Historic Ruling: Title VII Prohibits Discrimi-nation Against LGBTQ Employees. Available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericbachman/2020/06/15/supreme-court-rules-that-title-vii-prohibits-discrimination-against-lgbtq-employees/#7b2ab2cc33f9. Bollinger, Alex. 2020. Trump administration asks Supreme Court to make it legal to ban same-sex couples from adopting. Available at https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2020/06/trump-administration-asks-supreme-court-make-legal-ban-sex-couples-adopting/. Catholic Social Services—Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Our Mission, Vision, Values, and Beliefs. Available at https://cssphiladelphia.org/vision/. Executive Order 13988. 2021. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-preventing-and-combating-discrimination-on-basis-of-gender-identity-or-sexual-orientation/?fbclid=IwAR0Uikhzbq_nayPKW0BwtDEeO0XNG5PY7UtKjEjL7v7_y_A6st49Qe1jKdw. Garnett, Richard W. 2021. After Fulton, Religious Foster Care Agencies Still Vulnerable. Available at https://pse.is/3hwyjl. Garnett, Richard W. 2021. After Fulton, Religious Foster Care Agencies Still Vulnerable. Available at https://pse.is/3hwyjl. Gjelten, Tom. 2021. Some Faith Leaders Call Equality Act Devastating; For Others, It`s God`s Will. Available at https://www.npr.org/2021/03/10/974672313/some-faith-leaders-call-equality-act-devastating-for-others-its-gods-will?utm_term=nprnews&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&fbclid=IwAR3O1OVu5U71lsd85WtKmko61yhAqdh0-xcB4_WELEEfTycUoMjYn5j5v_k. Gresko, Jessica. 2020. A more conservative court hears same-sex foster parent case. Available at https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/more-conservative-court-hears-same-sex-foster-parent-case-n1246564. Howe, Amy. 2020. Argument analysis: Justices sympathetic to faith-based foster-care agency in anti-discrimination dispute. Available at https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/11/argument-analysis-justices-sympathetic-to-faith-based-foster-care-agency-in-anti-discrimination-dispute. Kurtzleben, Danielle. 2021. House Passes The Equality Act: Here`s What It Would Do. Available at https://www.npr.org/2021/02/24/969591569/house-to-vote-on-equality-act-heres-what-the-law-would-do?fbclid=IwAR0LcOvEFjwd4JBfs8uXqFWyrLpb91xmjFiqQU9hzf1gPNpFPaXyVucBIzE. Litman, Harry. 2018. Op-Ed: Actually, Kennedy`s Masterpiece Cakeshop opinion doesn`t conflict with his gay rights legacy. Available at https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-litman-masterpiece-cakeshop-supreme-court-anthony-kennedy-20180605-story.html?fbclid=IwAR3HBwG1XnqCXQBWZfDRY83m5k0x9ZUdgH0zM9yGpOWntTb85fJx5B4HZqg. N.Y. Supreme Court—Upstate Farm Can`t Refuse Same-Sex Weddings. 2016. Avail-able at https://www.advocate.com/marriage-equality/2016/1/14/ny-supreme-court-upstate-farm-cant-refuse-same-sex-weddings. Nondiscrimination laws, Movement Advancement Project: lgbtmap. Available at https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/non_discrimination_laws. Sepper, Elizabeth, and James D. Nelson. 2021. Fulton v. Philadelphia: A Masterpiece of an Opinion?. 2021. Available at https://pse.is/3fhwac. Sepper, Elizabeth, and James D. Nelson. 2021. Fulton v. Philadelphia: A Masterpiece of an Opinion?. Available at https://pse.is/3fhwac. Slevin, Colleen. 2021. Lakewood Baker Jack Phillips Sued for Refusing Gender Transition Cake. Available at https://pse.is/3kcfkm. Strauss, Valerie. 2020. What the Supreme Court discrimination ruling means — and doesn’t mean — for schools. Available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/06/15/what-supreme-court-discrimination-ruling-means-doesnt-schools/. Supreme Court of the United States website. Available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-123.html. The Internal Revenue Service. Available at https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/life-cycle-of-an-exempt-organization. Uddin, Asma T., and Howard Slugh. 2020. A Way for the Supreme Court to Protect Religious Minorities. Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/04/opinion/supreme-court-religion.html.
Description:	碩士國立政治大學法律學系 106651016
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106651016
Data Type:	thesis
DOI:	10.6814/NCCU202100871
Appears in Collections:	[Department of Law] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
101601.pdf		12336Kb	Adobe PDF2	548	View/Open

All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

社群 sharing

著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement

1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.

DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004 MIT & Hewlett-Packard / Enhanced by NTU Library IR team Copyright © - Feedback