Abstract

When, if ever, do business owners have a right to be exempted from laws prohibiting discrimination in the commercial marketplace? Although public debate over this question often focuses on the issue of religious liberty, litigants seeking exemptions in court have placed equal or greater reliance on arguments about compelled speech. This article examines how such arguments have been employed in recent high-profile cases in both the UK and the USA. The article also addresses a new variation on the exemption argument inspired by Teresa Bejan’s book, Mere Civility, and the allegedly ‘minimal’ conception of civility Roger Williams advocated in the 17th century. After explaining why reliance on Bejan and Williams is misplaced, the article turns to the key questions that arise under modern compelled-speech doctrine when a business owner seeks to resist an equal-service mandate. The US Supreme Court ultimately sidestepped those questions in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v Colorado Civil Rights Commission, while the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) offered cursory and unsatisfactory answers in Lee v Ashers Baking Co. This article fills the gap with a more thorough analysis.

中文翻译：

---

平等法的“纯粹文明”和强迫语态的困境

摘要

企业所有者何时有权获得禁止在商业市场上歧视的法律的豁免权？尽管有关该问题的公开辩论通常集中在宗教自由问题上，但寻求法院豁免的诉讼当事人对强迫言论的争论同样或更多地依赖。本文探讨了在英国和美国最近备受瞩目的案件中如何采用这种论点。本文还针对Teresa Bejan的《Mere Civility》一书中的豁免论点提出了新的变体。，以及所谓的“最小”文明概念，罗杰·威廉姆斯（Roger Williams）在17世纪倡导。在解释了为什么错误地依赖Bejan和Williams之后，本文转向了当企业主试图抵制平等服务的要求时，现代强迫言语学说下出现的关键问题。美国最高法院最终在Masterpiece Cakeshop，Ltd诉科罗拉多州民权委员会案中回避了这些问题，而英国最高法院（UKSC）在Lee诉Ashers Baking Co案中提出了粗略而不能令人满意的回答。本文通过更全面的分析填补了这一空白。