宗教自由的新疆域?LGBTQ权利vs .宗教良知

IF 1.3 0 RELIGION Religion State & Society Pub Date : 2022-05-27 DOI:10.1080/09637494.2022.2088991
J. Guth
{"title":"宗教自由的新疆域?LGBTQ权利vs .宗教良知","authors":"J. Guth","doi":"10.1080/09637494.2022.2088991","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT One frontier of public deliberation on religious freedom involves the clash of religious conscience with government rules against discrimination. As American courts consider issues pitting religious believers against other groups, especially LGBTQ citizens, the public is deeply divided. A paradigmatic case has been the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation, testing whether a Christian baker could refuse to produce a wedding cake for a same-sex couple given his religious objections. As that case continues and similar confrontations proliferate, the First Amendment’s ‘free exercise’ clause produces new dilemmas. Although public attitudes seldom influence judicial decisions directly, in the long run American courts may well ‘follow the election returns’. This contribution considers public assessments of the importance of religious liberty and then examines attitudes on the Masterpiece controversy, using data from the Democracy Fund’s Voter Survey and the 2016 and 2020 American National Election Studies (ANES). We find that religious factors play a major role in determining citizen opinion, as the public reacts very much along ‘culture wars’ lines. But personal attitudes toward LGBTQ citizens also have a major direct impact on views about ‘conscience exemptions’.","PeriodicalId":45069,"journal":{"name":"Religion State & Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"New frontiers of religious freedom? LGBTQ rights versus religious conscience\",\"authors\":\"J. Guth\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09637494.2022.2088991\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT One frontier of public deliberation on religious freedom involves the clash of religious conscience with government rules against discrimination. As American courts consider issues pitting religious believers against other groups, especially LGBTQ citizens, the public is deeply divided. A paradigmatic case has been the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation, testing whether a Christian baker could refuse to produce a wedding cake for a same-sex couple given his religious objections. As that case continues and similar confrontations proliferate, the First Amendment’s ‘free exercise’ clause produces new dilemmas. Although public attitudes seldom influence judicial decisions directly, in the long run American courts may well ‘follow the election returns’. This contribution considers public assessments of the importance of religious liberty and then examines attitudes on the Masterpiece controversy, using data from the Democracy Fund’s Voter Survey and the 2016 and 2020 American National Election Studies (ANES). We find that religious factors play a major role in determining citizen opinion, as the public reacts very much along ‘culture wars’ lines. But personal attitudes toward LGBTQ citizens also have a major direct impact on views about ‘conscience exemptions’.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45069,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Religion State & Society\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Religion State & Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09637494.2022.2088991\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Religion State & Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09637494.2022.2088991","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

公众讨论宗教自由的一个前沿问题涉及宗教良知与政府反歧视规定之间的冲突。当美国法院考虑宗教信徒与其他群体,尤其是LGBTQ公民之间的问题时,公众存在严重分歧。杰作蛋糕店(Masterpiece Cakeshop)诉讼案就是一个典型的案例,它考验了一名基督徒面包师是否可以拒绝为同性伴侣制作婚礼蛋糕,因为他的宗教信仰是反对的。随着案件的继续和类似对抗的激增,第一修正案的“自由行使”条款产生了新的困境。尽管公众态度很少直接影响司法裁决,但从长远来看,美国法院很可能“跟随选举结果”。这篇文章考虑了公众对宗教自由重要性的评估,然后使用民主基金选民调查和2016年和2020年美国全国选举研究(ANES)的数据,研究了对杰作争议的态度。我们发现,宗教因素在决定公民意见方面发挥着重要作用,因为公众的反应非常符合“文化战争”的路线。但个人对LGBTQ公民的态度也对“良心豁免”的观点产生了重大的直接影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
New frontiers of religious freedom? LGBTQ rights versus religious conscience
ABSTRACT One frontier of public deliberation on religious freedom involves the clash of religious conscience with government rules against discrimination. As American courts consider issues pitting religious believers against other groups, especially LGBTQ citizens, the public is deeply divided. A paradigmatic case has been the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation, testing whether a Christian baker could refuse to produce a wedding cake for a same-sex couple given his religious objections. As that case continues and similar confrontations proliferate, the First Amendment’s ‘free exercise’ clause produces new dilemmas. Although public attitudes seldom influence judicial decisions directly, in the long run American courts may well ‘follow the election returns’. This contribution considers public assessments of the importance of religious liberty and then examines attitudes on the Masterpiece controversy, using data from the Democracy Fund’s Voter Survey and the 2016 and 2020 American National Election Studies (ANES). We find that religious factors play a major role in determining citizen opinion, as the public reacts very much along ‘culture wars’ lines. But personal attitudes toward LGBTQ citizens also have a major direct impact on views about ‘conscience exemptions’.
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
1.90
自引率
10.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Religion, State & Society has a long-established reputation as the leading English-language academic publication focusing on communist and formerly communist countries throughout the world, and the legacy of the encounter between religion and communism. To augment this brief Religion, State & Society has now expanded its coverage to include religious developments in countries which have not experienced communist rule, and to treat wider themes in a more systematic way. The journal encourages a comparative approach where appropriate, with the aim of revealing similarities and differences in the historical and current experience of countries, regions and religions, in stability or in transition.
期刊最新文献
Confessional culture, religiosity, and traditionalism: tracing the influence of religion on public attitudes towards European integration Conflict and coexistence among minorities within minority religions: a case study of Tablighi Jama’at in Japan Editors’ introduction Rage and carnage in the name of God: religious violence in Nigeria Religion and minority in Japanese contexts
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1