题名

宗教非營利團體於公領域中之宗教自由及其限制－美國與加拿大最高法院兩則判決比較

并列篇名

Religious Freedom of Religious Non-Profit Organizations in the Public Sphere and Its Limits: A Comparative Analysis of Two Decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Canada

作者

林榮光(Rung-Guang Lin)

关键词

宗教非營利團體 ； 宗教團體之宗教自由 ； 公權力機關 ； 同志族群 ； 美國聯邦最高法院 ； 加拿大最高法院 ； Fulton v. City of Philadelphia ； Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University ； 世俗主義模式 ； Religious Non-Profit Organizations ； Religious Freedom of Religious Organizations ； Public Authorities ； LGBT Individuals ； The U.S. Supreme Court ； The Supreme Court of Canada ； Fulton v. City of Philadelphia ； Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University ； Models of Secularism

期刊名称

臺北大學法學論叢

卷期/出版年月

125期（2023 / 03 / 01）

页次

1 - 69

内容语文

繁體中文;英文
中文摘要

本文針對美國聯邦最高法院於2021年所做成之Fulton v. City of Philadelphia一案，以及加拿大最高法院於2018年所做成之Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University一案進行比較。兩則案件皆涉及宗教非營利團體因持有被認為對於同志族群構成歧視之政策，而失去其於公領域中運作的機會。然而，兩案在判決結果上卻截然不同：美國最高法院在Fulton案中以一致決判定，政府拒絕與一個天主教社福機構再次簽訂服務契約的決定為違憲。而加拿大最高法院在Law Society of British Columbia案中，則以7-2之票數認定，公權力機關拒絕認可一所基督教大學新設立的法學院之決定為合憲。本文探究此一判決結果上的顯著差異應如何予以解釋。本文並回顧美加兩國最高法院近十年來在「宗教團體之宗教自由」此一議題上的判決趨勢，以探究兩國法院針對此一議題是否有著明顯不同的處理模式。
英文摘要

This article compares the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, which was made in 2021, with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University, which was made in 2018. Both decisions involve religious non-profit organizations being prohibited by public authorities from operating in the public sphere because of their discriminatory policies towards LGBT individuals. However, the judgmental outcomes of the two cases are strikingly different: the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously in Fulton that the government's refusal to renew a contract with a Catholic social-service agency violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, whereas in Law Society of British Columbia, by a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the public authority's refusal to approve a new law school established by a Christian university does not violate freedom of religion protected by the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." This article explores the ways in which such differential judgmental outcomes could be explained. This article also examines the decisions by both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Canada since 2010 on the issue of "religious freedom of religious organizations," in order to ascertain if the two apex courts have developed divergent approaches to this issue.
主题分类 社會科學 > 法律學
参考文献
  1. (2022).歐洲人權法院裁判選譯（六）.司法院.
  2. Berg, Thomas C.,Colby, Kimberlee Wood,Esbeck, Carl H.,Garnett, Richard W.(2011).Religious Freedom, Church-State Separation, and the Ministerial Exception.NW. U. L. REV.,106,175-190.
  3. Bhabha, Faisal(2016).Religious Lawyering and Legal Ethics.RELIGION AND THE EXERCISE OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY
  4. BOUCHARD, GÉRARD,TAYLOR, CHARLES(2008).BUILDING THE FUTURE: A TIME FOR RECONCILIATION.
  5. Cohen, Jean L.(2015).Freedom of Religion, Inc.: Whose Sovereignty?.NETH. J. LEG. PHILOS.,44(3),169-210.
  6. Collings, Justin,Barclay, Stephanie Hall(2022).Taking Justification Seriously: Proportionality, Strict Scrutiny, and the Substance of Religious Liberty.B. C. L. REV.,63,453-520.
  7. Dane, Perry(2018).Establishment and Encounter.RESEARCH HANDBOOK ON LAW AND RELIGION
  8. Durham, W. Cole, Jr.(1996).Perspectives on Religious Liberty: A Comparative Framework.RELIGIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS IN GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE: LEGAL PERSPECTIVES
  9. Epp Buckingham, Janet(2018).Trinity Western University’s Law School: Reconciling Rights.RESEARCH HANDBOOK ON LAW AND RELIGION
  10. ESAU, ALVIN A.J.(2004).THE COURTS AND THE COLONIES: THE LITIGATION OF HUTTERITE CHURCH DISPUTES.
  11. Esau, Alvin A.J.(2016).Collective Freedom of Religion.RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND COMMUNITIES
  12. Galston, William A.(1995).Two Concepts of Liberalism.ETHICS,105(3),516-534.
  13. GALSTON, WILLIAM A.(2002).LIBERAL PLURALISM: THE IMPLICATIONS OF VALUE PLURALISM FOR POLITICAL THEORY AND PRACTICE.
  14. Garnett, Richard W.(2013).“The Freedom of the Church”: (Towards) an Exposition, Translation, and Defense.J. CONTEMP. LEGAL ISSUES,21,33-57.
  15. Greenawalt, Kent(2016).Hobby Lobby: Its Flawed Interpretive Techniques and Standards of Application.THE RISE OF CORPORATE RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
  16. Horwitz, Paul(2012).Act III of the Ministerial Exception.NW. U. L. REV.,106(2),973-993.
  17. Horwitz, Paul(2013).Defending (Religious) Institutionalism.VA. L. REV.,99(5),1049-1063.
  18. Horwitz, Paul(2009).Churches as First Amendment Institutions: Of Sovereignty and Spheres.HARV. C.R.-C.L. L. REV.,44,79-131.
  19. Laycock, Douglas(2009).Church Autonomy Revisited.Geo. J.L. & PUB. POL’Y,7,253-278.
  20. Lupu, Ira C.,Tuttle, Robert(2002).The Distinctive Place of Religious Entities in Our Constitutional Order.VILL. L. REV.,47,37-92.
  21. Lupu, Ira C.,Tuttle, Robert W.(2016).Religious Exemptions and the Limited Relevance of Corporate Identity.THE RISE OF CORPORATE RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
  22. MACLURE, JOCELYN,TAYLOR, CHARLES(2011).SECULARISM AND FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE.
  23. Movsesian, Mark L.(2022).Law, Religion, and the Covid-19 Crisis.J.L. & RELIG.,37(1),9-24.
  24. Muñiz-Fraticelli, Victor M.,David, Lawrence(2015).Religious Institutionalism in a Canadian Context.OSGOODE HALL L.J.,52(3),1049-1114.
  25. NUSSBAUM, MARTHA(2008).LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE: IN DEFENSE OF AMERICA’S TRADITION OF RELIGIOUS EQUALITY.
  26. Okin, Susan M.(2002).“Mistresses of Their Own Destiny”: Group Rights, Gender, and Realistic Rights of Exit.ETHICS,112(2),205-230.
  27. Schragger, Richard,Schwartzman, Micah(2013).Against Religious Institutionalism.VA. L. REV.,99(5),917-985.
  28. SHACHAR, AYELET(2001).MULTICULTURAL JURISDICTIONS: CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS.
  29. Smith, Steven D.(2016).The Jurisdictional Conception of Church Autonomy.THE RISE OF CORPORATE RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
  30. Smith, Steven D.(2012).Freedom of Religion or Freedom of the Church?.LEGAL RESPONSES TO RELIGIOUS PRACTICES IN THE UNITED STATES: ACCOMMODATION AND ITS LIMITS
  31. SPINNER-HALEV, JEFF(2000).SURVIVING DIVERSITY: RELIGION AND DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP.
  32. Wilson, Robin Fretwell(2016).Bargaining for Religious Accommodations: Same-Sex Marriage and LGBT Rights after Hobby Lobby.THE RISE OF CORPORATE RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
  33. Woehrling, José(2011).The B-T Report ‘Open Secularism’ Model and the Supreme Court of Canada Decisions on Freedom of Religion and Religious Accommodation.RELIGION, CULTURE, AND THE STATE: REFLECTIONS ON THE BOUCHARD-TAYLOR REPORT
  34. 林榮光(2021)。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。政大法學評論，167
  35. 廖元豪,陳淳文（編）(2020)。上帝不雇用同志？－雇主得否以宗教理由對同志差別待遇？。法的理性－吳庚教授紀念論文集
print cancel