Scholarlink

<p>This paper analyses the moral structure of claims to religious exemptions that appeal to the logic of balancing, or the idea that one’s higher-order interests are unequally burdened relative to other parties’ higher-order interests and this burden requires easing through exemptions. In particular, I discuss whether the logic of balancing can justify a religious exemption in an idealised version of <i>Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission</i>. This case before the Supreme Court of the United States involved religious bakery owners claiming for a religious exemption from anti-discrimination law in order to refuse service to a same-sex couple of&#xa0;customers seeking a wedding cake for their wedding. I consider two kinds of possible interest that could ground balancing in this case: integrity-preservation and equal-opportunity. I conclude that neither can.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

When Does Balancing Justify Religious Exemptions? The Case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年4月18日

查看全文
  • Samuel Cole

摘要

This paper analyses the moral structure of claims to religious exemptions that appeal to the logic of balancing, or the idea that one’s higher-order interests are unequally burdened relative to other parties’ higher-order interests and this burden requires easing through exemptions. In particular, I discuss whether the logic of balancing can justify a religious exemption in an idealised version of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. This case before the Supreme Court of the United States involved religious bakery owners claiming for a religious exemption from anti-discrimination law in order to refuse service to a same-sex couple of customers seeking a wedding cake for their wedding. I consider two kinds of possible interest that could ground balancing in this case: integrity-preservation and equal-opportunity. I conclude that neither can.