When rights clash 权利冲突之时

A GENERATION ago, gays felt the system was stacked against them. These days, at least on liberal university campuses, it is fundamentalist Christians who feel beleaguered. On April 19th the Supreme Court heard a case about a clash between the two groups. At issue is whether a public university’s rules barring discrimination against gays should trump the right of the faithful to practice their religion.

在上一代人所处的时代里，同性恋者感到社会体系对己不利；而如今，至少在风气自由的大学校园中，倍感折磨的却是原教旨基督教徒们。4月19日，最高法院听取了一桩关于这两个团体之间冲突的案件。此案问题在于：公立学校禁止歧视同性恋者的规则，是否可以压倒信徒践行宗教的权利？

At the Hastings College of the Law, an arm of the University of California in San Francisco, a student group called the Christian Legal Society (CLS) wants to be led only by those who share its beliefs. These include the notion that sex outside of traditional marriage is immoral. Gays are allowed to join the group, as indeed are other “sinners”, but only if they repent.

在加州大学旧金山分校下属的哈斯汀法学院里，一个名为基督教法律社团的学生团体希望由那些与之信念相同的人担任领导，这些信念包括在传统婚姻之外的性行为皆不道德这一观念。只有当同性恋者表示悔过之后，他们才被允许加入该团体（实际上其他“罪人”的待遇也是一样）。

Hastings decided that this violated its rule barring student groups from discriminating against anyone because of their sexual orientation, among other things. The college withdrew its recognition of the CLS. This means that the group no longer gets subsidies and easy access to campus meeting rooms. It is also unable to use the college e-mail system, to advertise its meetings on the main college bulletin board or to recruit at the welcoming fair for new students. The CLS sued, accusing the college of breaching its own policy forbidding discrimination on grounds of religion, not to mention the constitution’s guarantees of freedom of religion and of association.

哈斯汀法学院认定此举有违该院关于禁止学生团体基于性倾向等原因对他人加以歧视的规则，该院收回了对基督教法律社团的承认，这意味着该团体再也不能获得补贴，也无法轻松获得校内会议室的使用权，同时该团体也不能使用学院电子邮件系统，不能在学院主要公告栏内为自己的集会做宣传或在迎新活动上招募社员。基督教法律社团为此上诉，它指控学校禁止基于宗教原因进行歧视的做法违背了自身的政策，更不用提宪法对宗教自由和结社自由的保障了。

It is a tricky case. The college insists that it has not trampled on anyone’s religious freedom. The Christian students are free to go and hold their meetings elsewhere. The Christian students retort that they have been singled out. Until recently, the college tolerated a Hispanic student group that had a rule excluding non-Hispanics.

这是一个棘手的案子。院方坚称自己并未践踏任何人的宗教自由：这些基督教学生可以自由地另觅他处、举行会议；而学生则反唇相讥，指称自己被区别对待。直到不久以前，学院还容忍一个制定有排除非拉美裔学生规则的拉美裔学生团体存在。

The Christians say that anyone is welcome to attend their meetings, but that only those who share their core beliefs may vote or assume leadership positions. If they cannot insist on this, they say, there is nothing to stop their group from being taken over by people hostile to its principles. Other groups would also be vulnerable: the campus Republicans would have to admit Democrats, Jewish groups would have to admit neo-Nazis and so on. Presumably, a small student society devoted to the study of philosophy could be taken over by a larger group of students who wished to spend its resources on beer.

这些基督教学生声称：他们欢迎任何人前来参加集会，不过只有那些共享其核心信念的人士方可投票或担当领导职务。学生们说：如果他们不能坚持这一点的话，就无法阻止其团体被那些对其原则抱有敌意的人所掌控了。其他团体也将变得脆弱不堪：校内共和党团体将不得不接纳民主党人，而犹太团体则得接纳新纳粹分子，凡此种种，不一而足。按此推断，一个专注于哲学研究的小型学生社团，甚至会被由那些希望将其资源用于购买啤酒的学生所组成的较大团体接管。

The stated purpose of the university’s non-discrimination rule is to promote a diversity of viewpoints. But “if the student organisations are not allowed to have a coherent set of beliefs, there can be no diversity among them,” complained Michael McConnell, a lawyer for CLS. He echoed what the late Justice William Brennan argued in 1984, that: “freedom of association …plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate.”

该校非歧视规则的公开目的是促进观点的多样性；不过基督教法律社团的律师迈克尔•麦康奈尔对此抱怨道：“如果校方不允许学生组织拥有一整套条理清晰的信念的话，组织之间将无多样性可言。” 麦康奈尔仿效已故大法官威廉•布伦南在1984年的说法：“结社自由……明显是以不结社的自由为预设条件的。”

At oral arguments, the Supreme Court appeared sharply divided. Justice Antonin Scalia, a reliable conservative, said it was “weird” to require a Republican club to admit Democrats, and “crazy” to insist that a Christian society “allow atheists not just to join, but to conduct Bible classes”. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal, was inclined to give the college the benefit of the doubt. “It may be an ill-advised policy, but the school says: It’s our policy, it’s working fine, and all the hypotheticals about sabotage [and] takeover, they haven’t happened,” she said.

看起来，最高法院在口头辩论阶段分歧严重。大法官安东尼•斯卡里亚是一位可靠的保守派人士，他指出要求共和党俱乐部接纳民主党成员是一种“古怪的”做法，而坚持让基督教社团“不但允许无神论者加入其中，甚至还让后者指导读经课”的做法更是“疯狂”。而自由派大法官鲁丝•巴德•金斯伯格则倾向于将学校的做法向好的一方面想，她谈道：“这或许是一个拙劣的政策，但校方表示：这是我们的政策，它的效果不错，那些关于破坏（和）接管的假设都没有成为现实。”

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often the Court’s swing voter, sounded as though he was swinging towards Ms Ginsburg’s position. “If the Christian Legal Society has these beliefs,” he said, “I am not so sure why people that don’t agree with them want to belong to them.”

大法官安东尼•肯尼迪在最高法院中的立场常常摇摆不定，这次他听上去像是支持金斯伯格女士的立场，他说道：“如果基督教法律社团持有这些信仰的话，我不太肯定为何不认同这些信仰的人士会希望成为该社团的一员。”

Barack Obama has carefully kept his distance. He does not want to upset people with traditional religious views. But however the top court rules, the issue is likely to come up at the Senate confirmation hearings for Mr Obama’s next nominee to join it. One candidate on every pundit’s shortlist to replace him is Diane Wood, who once issued a stinging dissent when, in a similar case, an appeals court in Chicago ruled in favour of a local chapter of the same Christian group. “Even if [a university’s anti-discrimination] policy somehow infringes upon a First Amendment right of CLS or its members,” she argued, “that infringement may be justified if it is in furtherance of a compelling state interest,” such as promoting diversity. If Judge Wood is nominated, expect fireworks.

贝拉克•奥巴马谨慎地与此问题保持着距离。他不愿惹恼那些抱有传统宗教观点的民众。不过无论最高法院做出何种判决，这一问题都可能会出现在关于奥巴马下一任大法官提名的参议院听证会上。被每一位权威人士都列入替代者备选名单的候选者是戴安娜•伍德，此前在一起类似的案件中、她曾在芝加哥一家上诉法院做出有利于同一基督教团体本地分会的判决时、发表过一份措辞激烈的异议。她指出：“即便（某所大学的反歧视）政策在某种意义上侵害了由第一修正案赋予基督教法律社团或其成员的权利，但只要它能促进紧迫的国家利益，则这种侵害或许就可被证明是正当的，”而提升多样性便是这种利益之一。如果伍德法官获得提名的话，就有好戏看了。