同性婚姻平權與宗教信仰自由之衝突與權衡—以宗教信徒及團體拒絕服務同性伴侶之憲法爭議為中心

本文旨在探討同性婚姻與宗教自由（又稱履行／行使宗教之自由）之間的衝突與調和。自我國司法院大法官肯認憲法保障同性二人婚姻自由平等保護，使得同性伴侶得以受憲法及法律肯認其法律上地位（婚姻關係），而與他人發生權利義務法律關係。問題是，當宗教團體與信徒基於其反對同性婚姻之宗教信仰拒絕服務同性伴侶，而被政府處罰或施加負擔，造成其無法履行其宗教目的，是否侵害其宗教自由？這議題涉及憲法未列舉權之解釋與傳統宗教信仰對於權利理解間的相關性和衝突性，以及在憲法要求下，如何衡平這些基本價值？國家利益是否可與個人真誠的宗教相權衡？本文首先分析宗教自由保障與宗教豁免一般性法律爭議。本文整理美國憲法學上宗教自由理論之發展，重新檢視我國憲法第13條「人民有信仰宗教之自由」真義，帶出在法律適用上造成宗教自由實質負擔時的審查標準。第二部分則是從美國聯邦最高法院Obergefell v. Hodges案與我國司法院釋字第748號解釋之比較，探究不同價值觀影響非憲法明文之基本權之闡釋，以及世俗婚姻觀與宗教婚姻觀之論辯。本文以為，非憲法明文之基本權解釋必須與時俱進，而世俗婚姻與宗教婚姻兩者雖有相關但不必然會等同。按憲法保障人民多元價值之主張，但當同性伴侶以同志身分為生活實踐，並進入就業、交易等各種社會生活層面，與宗教信徒「教義履行行為」相遇，就會發生具體衝突，進而產生之後「同性婚姻與宗教自由之基本權衝突」。為凸顯此議題，本文嘗試在第三部份，參考美國法已發生之案例，舉出幾則我國目前可能會發生的衝突情況，並列出幾則美國聯邦及州法院的相關裁判。回顧這些宗教團體和信徒以宗教理由拒絕服務同性婚姻的案例，法院似乎有類型化處理這些婚禮供應商（花商、攝影師、婚禮策劃者）和宗教異議者（如宗教學院、收養、寄養機構等）因其傳統信仰而面臨性傾向歧視處罰的爭議。尤其是2018年Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission以及2021年Fulton v. City of Philadelphia，對於同性婚姻與宗教自由具有相當重要的影響。本文歸納相關裁判意旨，看出有些法院基於貫徹同性婚姻平等保護而認為宗教自由必須限縮，也有法院認為政府適用反歧視法對待宗教異議者之宗教信仰必須秉持中立與寬容，亦有法院主張從「迫切利益標準」，政府措施並不符合該標準而違憲。本文以為，美國憲法學經驗值得做為我國憲法宗教自由理論發展之參考，並提出「類型化權衡標準」解決同性婚姻與宗教自由之基本權衝突問題。另外，基於宗教履行行為之事物本質，本文提出「層級化宗教自由審查」理論，法院應就所涉及之領域不同，而有不同之審查。本文結論認為，消弭性傾向歧視與同性婚姻平等保護亦是憲法所要保障之極重大公益目的，國家必須給予同性伴侶與他人同等的條件來行使其自由權，但在涉及宗教核心領域或與宗教信仰有密切相關的範疇，宗教團體及信徒可以在自由行使條款保障之下，在不嚴重影響同性伴侶的前提下，基於其真摯的宗教信仰而拒絕服務於同性伴侶。

關鍵字

同性婚姻；宗教自由；宗教豁免；平等保護；權利衝突與調和；層級化宗教自由保障

並列摘要

This thesis intends to explore the conflict and reconciliation between same-sex marriage and religious liberty (or “free exercise of religion”). Since Taiwan Constitutional Court has ruled that the Constitution guarantees two persons of the same sex equal protection of the freedom of marriage, the Constitution and civil law acknowledge the marital legal status of same sex couples. Nevertheless, the constitutionality of “government punitive measures” against those refusing to serve same-sex couples remains an issue. The controversial points include the relevance and conflict of constitutional unenumerated rights interpretations and the traditional understanding of religious rights. How should these fundamental values be balanced under constitutional qualifications? Can the state’s interest in protecting same-sex marriage be weighed against people’s sincerely held religious beliefs? To answer these questions, this thesis will first analyze theories of free exercise of religion in the U.S Constitution and whether religious actions are exempted from the neutral and generally applicable law. Furthermore, the thesis will generalize from the development of the theory of religious freedom in American constitutional jurisprudence, and then reexamines the meaning of Article 13 of Taiwan’s Constitution to bring out the standard of review when the application of the law imposes a substantial burden on religious objector. The second part will compare the opinion of Obergefell v. Hodge and Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 748, focusing on the influence of different values on the constitutional unenumerated rights interpretations and difference between secular (civil) and religious marriage. We find that constitutional unenumerated rights interpretations need to keep up with the times. In addition, the meaning of secular and religious marriage is related but not necessarily the same. That is, various aspects of social life of same-sex couples, such as employment and trade, may conflict with religious objectors. To highlight this issue, this thesis attempts to provide a few examples of potentially conflicting situations in Taiwan by referring to cases that have already occurred in the U.S. and relevant court decisions. Reviewing cases in which wedding vendors (such as florists, photographers and wedding planners) and religious objectors (colleges, adoption, foster agencies, etc.) refuse to provide service to same-sex couples, the courts seemed to have developed a categorized method when making rulings. In particular, two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, have had a significant impact on the conflict and reconciliation between same-sex marriage and religious liberty. On the one hand, some courts held that religious objectors’ refusal to serve same-sex couples violated anti-discrimination laws. As the prevention of discrimination against same-sex couples qualifies as a compelling state interest, it is therefore weighed against the freedom of religion. On the other hand, some courts held that when the government applies anti-discrimination laws, it is obligated to follow the Free Exercise Clause and remain neutral and tolerant towards religious beliefs. This thesis justifies that American freedom of religion theory enforcement experience is worthy of reference to Taiwan, and that it will introduce “categorization of balancing test” to handle the clash between same-sex marriage and religious freedom. Based on the "Nature of Things" of the exercise of religions, I will illustrate a concept of a hierarchical protection structure, called “the hierarchy protection of religious freedom”. The court should have a different standard of review depending on the religious protection area involved. This thesis then concludes that the governmental policy serves a compelling state interest—the eradication of sexual-orientation discrimination and protection of same-sex marriage—and that the policy properly applied. Nevertheless, as equal protection of the right to marry should be safeguarded, religious beliefs are still protected under the Free Exercise Clause in particular cases, such as core areas of religious freedom or exercise closely related to religious beliefs, provided that such religious exemption does not harm same-sex couples, allowing religious groups and people to refuse to provide services to same-sex couples.

並列關鍵字

Same-Sex Marriage ； Free Exercise of Religion ； Religious Exemption ； Equal Protection ； The Conflict and Reconciliation of Rights ； The Hierarchy Protection of Religious Freedom