良心反对与蛋糕制作的政治

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW
R. Moon
{"title":"良心反对与蛋糕制作的政治","authors":"R. Moon","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwaa013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In two recent cases, one in the USA and the other in the UK, courts have considered conscientious objection claims made by cake bakers who objected to providing a cake for the celebration/advocacy of same-sex marriage. I will argue that the issue in these cases is not the reasonable balance between the individual’s religious interests and the interests or rights of others in the community but is instead whether the individual’s religiously based objection should be viewed as an expression of personal religious conscience or as a (religiously grounded) civic position or action that falls outside the scope of religious freedom protection. In determining whether a conscientious objection should be viewed as a personal/spiritual matter or instead as a civic/political position, two factors are relevant. The first is whether the individual is being required to perform the particular act (to which she/he objects) because she/he holds a special position not held by others. The other factor is the relative remoteness/proximity of the act that the objector is required to perform from the act that she/he considers to be inherently immoral. The more remote the legally required action, the more likely we are to regard the objection as a political position.","PeriodicalId":44058,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/ojlr/rwaa013","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conscientious Objection and the Politics of Cake-Making\",\"authors\":\"R. Moon\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ojlr/rwaa013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n In two recent cases, one in the USA and the other in the UK, courts have considered conscientious objection claims made by cake bakers who objected to providing a cake for the celebration/advocacy of same-sex marriage. I will argue that the issue in these cases is not the reasonable balance between the individual’s religious interests and the interests or rights of others in the community but is instead whether the individual’s religiously based objection should be viewed as an expression of personal religious conscience or as a (religiously grounded) civic position or action that falls outside the scope of religious freedom protection. In determining whether a conscientious objection should be viewed as a personal/spiritual matter or instead as a civic/political position, two factors are relevant. The first is whether the individual is being required to perform the particular act (to which she/he objects) because she/he holds a special position not held by others. The other factor is the relative remoteness/proximity of the act that the objector is required to perform from the act that she/he considers to be inherently immoral. The more remote the legally required action, the more likely we are to regard the objection as a political position.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44058,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/ojlr/rwaa013\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojlr/rwaa013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojlr/rwaa013","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: 0

摘要

在最近的两个案例中,一个在美国,另一个在英国,法院考虑了蛋糕师反对为庆祝/倡导同性婚姻提供蛋糕的良心反对主张。我认为,在这些案件中,问题不在于个人的宗教利益与社会中其他人的利益或权利之间的合理平衡,而是个人基于宗教的反对应被视为个人宗教良心的表达,还是(基于宗教的)公民立场或不属于宗教自由保护范围的行动。在确定良心反对应被视为个人/精神问题还是公民/政治立场时,有两个因素是相关的。首先,个人是否因为拥有别人不拥有的特殊职位而被要求执行特定的行为(她/他反对)。另一个因素是反对者被要求执行的行为与他/她认为本质上不道德的行为之间的距离相对较远。法律要求的行动越遥远,我们就越有可能把反对视为一种政治立场。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Conscientious Objection and the Politics of Cake-Making
In two recent cases, one in the USA and the other in the UK, courts have considered conscientious objection claims made by cake bakers who objected to providing a cake for the celebration/advocacy of same-sex marriage. I will argue that the issue in these cases is not the reasonable balance between the individual’s religious interests and the interests or rights of others in the community but is instead whether the individual’s religiously based objection should be viewed as an expression of personal religious conscience or as a (religiously grounded) civic position or action that falls outside the scope of religious freedom protection. In determining whether a conscientious objection should be viewed as a personal/spiritual matter or instead as a civic/political position, two factors are relevant. The first is whether the individual is being required to perform the particular act (to which she/he objects) because she/he holds a special position not held by others. The other factor is the relative remoteness/proximity of the act that the objector is required to perform from the act that she/he considers to be inherently immoral. The more remote the legally required action, the more likely we are to regard the objection as a political position.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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