The ‘Mere Civility’ of Equality Law and Compelled-Speech Quandaries

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW
J. Oleske
{"title":"The ‘Mere Civility’ of Equality Law and Compelled-Speech Quandaries","authors":"J. Oleske","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwaa009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n When, if ever, do business owners have a right to be exempted from laws prohibiting discrimination in the commercial marketplace? Although public debate over this question often focuses on the issue of religious liberty, litigants seeking exemptions in court have placed equal or greater reliance on arguments about compelled speech. This article examines how such arguments have been employed in recent high-profile cases in both the UK and the USA. The article also addresses a new variation on the exemption argument inspired by Teresa Bejan’s book, Mere Civility, and the allegedly ‘minimal’ conception of civility Roger Williams advocated in the 17th century. After explaining why reliance on Bejan and Williams is misplaced, the article turns to the key questions that arise under modern compelled-speech doctrine when a business owner seeks to resist an equal-service mandate. The US Supreme Court ultimately sidestepped those questions in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v Colorado Civil Rights Commission, while the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) offered cursory and unsatisfactory answers in Lee v Ashers Baking Co. This article fills the gap with a more thorough analysis.","PeriodicalId":44058,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","volume":"9 1","pages":"288-304"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/ojlr/rwaa009","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojlr/rwaa009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

When, if ever, do business owners have a right to be exempted from laws prohibiting discrimination in the commercial marketplace? Although public debate over this question often focuses on the issue of religious liberty, litigants seeking exemptions in court have placed equal or greater reliance on arguments about compelled speech. This article examines how such arguments have been employed in recent high-profile cases in both the UK and the USA. The article also addresses a new variation on the exemption argument inspired by Teresa Bejan’s book, Mere Civility, and the allegedly ‘minimal’ conception of civility Roger Williams advocated in the 17th century. After explaining why reliance on Bejan and Williams is misplaced, the article turns to the key questions that arise under modern compelled-speech doctrine when a business owner seeks to resist an equal-service mandate. The US Supreme Court ultimately sidestepped those questions in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v Colorado Civil Rights Commission, while the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) offered cursory and unsatisfactory answers in Lee v Ashers Baking Co. This article fills the gap with a more thorough analysis.
平等法的“纯粹文明”与强迫言论困境
如果有的话,企业主什么时候有权免受禁止商业市场歧视的法律的约束?尽管关于这个问题的公开辩论通常集中在宗教自由问题上,但在法庭上寻求豁免的诉讼当事人已经平等或更多地依赖于关于强迫言论的论点。这篇文章探讨了这种论点是如何在英国和美国最近备受关注的案件中使用的。这篇文章还探讨了特蕾莎·贝扬的书《纯粹的文明》启发的豁免论点的一个新变体,以及罗杰·威廉姆斯在17世纪倡导的所谓“最低限度”的文明概念。在解释了为什么对Bejan和Williams的依赖是错误的之后,文章转向了在现代强迫言论理论下,当企业主试图抵制平等服务授权时出现的关键问题。美国最高法院最终在Masterpiece Cakeshop,Ltd诉科罗拉多州民权委员会一案中回避了这些问题,而英国最高法院(UKSC)在Lee诉Ashers Baking Co.一案中给出了粗略而不令人满意的答案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: Recent years have witnessed a resurgence of religion in public life and a concomitant array of legal responses. This has led in turn to the proliferation of research and writing on the interaction of law and religion cutting across many disciplines. The Oxford Journal of Law and Religion (OJLR) will have a range of articles drawn from various sectors of the law and religion field, including: social, legal and political issues involving the relationship between law and religion in society; comparative law perspectives on the relationship between religion and state institutions; developments regarding human and constitutional rights to freedom of religion or belief; considerations of the relationship between religious and secular legal systems; and other salient areas where law and religion interact (e.g., theology, legal and political theory, legal history, philosophy, etc.). The OJLR reflects the widening scope of study concerning law and religion not only by publishing leading pieces of legal scholarship but also by complementing them with the work of historians, theologians and social scientists that is germane to a better understanding of the issues of central concern. We aim to redefine the interdependence of law, humanities, and social sciences within the widening parameters of the study of law and religion, whilst seeking to make the distinctive area of law and religion more comprehensible from both a legal and a religious perspective. We plan to capture systematically and consistently the complex dynamics of law and religion from different legal as well as religious research perspectives worldwide. The OJLR seeks leading contributions from various subdomains in the field and plans to become a world-leading journal that will help shape, build and strengthen the field as a whole.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信