Fulton v. City of Philadelphia presented a by-now familiar constitutional claim: recognizing civil marriage equality—the right of persons to marry regardless of gender—inevitably and sharply conflicts with the religious liberty of persons and religious institutions who sincerely believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. While the Supreme Court's 9-0 unanimous judgment in favor of Catholic Social Services (CSS) surprised Court-watchers, Chief Justice Roberts's opinion did not signal consensus on the Court over how best to resolve the evident conflicts raised by the contract between CSS and the City of Philadelphia. This article argues that it is productive and illuminating to compare such conflicts over public–private partnerships and the best understanding of pluralism in a constitutional democracy with controversies arising 20 years ago over the faith-based initiative launched by President George W. Bush with the blueprint, Rallying the Armies of Compassion. That initiative also rested on premises about the place of religion in the public square and the role of civil society in carrying out governmental purposes. In both contexts, concerns over “discrimination” took two forms: first, that religious entities who contract with government might be subject to governmental discrimination in not receiving funding and, second, that religious entities who contract with government might themselves engage in discrimination. This article evaluates how the parties and their amici in Fulton argued over these forms of discrimination. It highlights how, in doing so, they enlisted or rejected analogies between race and sexual orientation discrimination—and between objections to interracial marriage and same-sex marriage—that were powerful, pervasive, and contested in Obergefell v. Hodges and Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission but scarcely featured in Roberts' Fulton opinion.

中文翻译：

---

Obergefell、Masterpiece Cakeshop、Fulton 和公私合作伙伴关系：释放与利用“同情之军”2.0？

富尔顿诉费城提出了一个现在熟悉的宪法主张：承认公民婚姻平等——无论性别如何，人们都有权结婚——这不可避免地与那些真诚地相信婚姻是一个人和一个人的结合的个人和宗教机构的宗教自由发生严重冲突女士。虽然最高法院以 9 比 0 一致作出有利于天主教社会服务部 (CSS) 的判决令法庭观察者感到惊讶，但首席大法官罗伯茨的意见并未表明法院就如何最好地解决 CSS 与天主教社会服务部之间的合同引发的明显冲突达成共识。费城市。集结慈悲大军。该倡议还以宗教在公共广场的地位和民间社会在执行政府目的中的作用为前提。在这两种情况下，对“歧视”的担忧有两种形式：第一，与政府签订合同的宗教实体可能因未获得资金而受到政府歧视；第二，与政府签订合同的宗教实体本身可能会受到歧视。本文评估了富尔顿的当事人及其朋友争论这些形式的歧视。它强调了在这样做的过程中，他们如何获得或拒绝种族和性取向歧视之间的类比——以及反对异族婚姻和同性婚姻之间的类比——这些类比在Obergefell v. Hodges和Masterpiece Cakeshop v.科罗拉多民权委员会，但几乎没有出现在罗伯茨的富尔顿意见中。