※ 引述《DCHC (纯爱基本教义派♥)》之铭言：
: Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n
:
: 依照最高法院法官的判决意义(Holding)，
: 法官服从宪法第一修正案的规定，
: 保护蛋糕店老板的宗教信仰，所以认定民权委员会违反自由行为条款。
:
: 而最高法院承认同性恋婚姻的判决与本案无关，
: 同性恋情侣仍可以接受婚礼与拥有婚姻生活。
:
: 所以民权委员会，不得以科罗拉多州的保护同性恋法律，侵害人民的宗教信仰自由。
:
:
: 求神怜悯我们犯错，感谢神保守我们幸福平安。
: 推 yuriforever: 盖 06/05 21:54
: → yuriforever: 盖 06/05 21:54
: 嘘 maxisam: 妳阅读能力真的很强 科罗拉多州根本没有保护同性恋法律 06/05 22:47
你说错了，Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA),
It is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons。
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dora/civil-rights/colorado-revised-statutes
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/costillacounty/atom/3111
: 推 legendary85: 推推某族群就是甲中立散布谣言黑蛋糕师傅带风向 06/06 00:16
: → dillams: 并不是 不得以反歧视法侵害宗教自由 06/06 02:09
: → dillams: 而是 侵害宗教自由的此民权委员会做出的判决无效 好吗 06/06 02:10
: → dillams: 就说了大法官这次根本没有让反歧视法和宗教/言论自由对决 06/06 02:11
市民委员会对信仰自由的认定错误理由，
是市民委员会误用反歧视法，
The Commission’s actions in this case violated the Free Exercise
Clause.
最高法院法官认为市民委员会不得误用反歧视法，
违反宪法第一修正案，侵害人民的信仰自由。
因此法官的意见是：
First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and
persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach
the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their
lives and faiths.”
The commissioner even went so far as to compare Phillips’invocation
of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and
the Holocaust.
This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn
responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s
antidiscrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on
the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.
反歧视法(anti-discrimination law)只是保护同性恋的基本人权，
因此法官的意见是：
It is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons, just as it
can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products
and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered
to other members of the public. And there are no doubt innumerable goods
and services that no one could argue implicate the First Amendment.
Petitioners conceded, moreover, that if a baker refused to sell any goods
or any cakes for gay weddings, that would be a different matter and the
State would have a strong case under this Court’s precedents that this
would be a denial of goods and services that went beyond any protected
rights of a baker who offers goods and services to the general public and
is subject to a neutrally applied and generally applicable public
accommodations law.
同理，同性恋信仰创造宇宙的神，
其他同性恋也应该遵守第一修正案，
不得以反歧视法侵害同性恋的信仰自由。
In God we trust ，
因此，美国的同性恋案件的判决，
法官仍依照美国独立宣言宣示的道德真理，判定每个行为的对错。
所以最高法院法官依照本院过去每件判决所形成的意见，
保护同性恋的基本权利，也保护异性恋的基本权利。
求神怜悯我们犯错，感谢神保守我们幸福平安。