本文以我國實際歧視案件出發，點出在將平等保障延伸至私領域時，可能面臨限制個人自主與自由權之挑戰。接著，本文以英國反歧視／平等法制相關判例為研究對象，歸納英國實務於權利衡平時之審查標準與方式，即透過「正當目的」與「比例原則」之檢驗，並以「對他人權利與自由所造成之實質影響程度」作為核心判斷基準。

 

具體而言，若行為僅涉及個人信仰或表意行為，且未對他人權利產生顯著之實質影響時，法院往往傾向容許個體自由權的行使。反之，若該行為將導致特定群體之平等權受到侵害，或產生排除或嚇阻效果時，則會提高審查密度，並優先保障平等權。另於同志蛋糕案中，法院亦進一步區分「拒絕傳達特定訊息」與「基於身分拒絕提供服務」之差異，凸顯其在表意自由與反歧視規範間的取捨。

 

本文最後主張，我國立法與實務在落實禁止歧視規範時，應以「正當目的」與「比例原則」作為操作核心，並得參考英國法院以「影響他人權利之程度」為衡量基準之模式。同時，亦應透過「文化內部詮釋」強化人權價值之本土實踐，並正視歧視案件中所潛藏之權力不對等問題，以兼顧實質平等與信仰、表意等自由之保障，進而提升法規範的安定性與可操作性。

 

關鍵字

反歧視法、平等法、平等、實質平等、私領域歧視、服務歧視、權利衡平、權利權衡、比例原則

The study begins with actual discrimination cases in Taiwan to highlight the challenges that may arise when extending equality protection into the private sphere, particularly the potential constraints on individual autonomy and freedom. It then turns to case law under the United Kingdom’s anti-discrimination and equality framework, distilling the standards and approaches adopted in judicial balancing. Specifically, the courts apply tests of “legitimate aim” and “proportionality,” with the “substantive degree of impact on the rights and freedoms of others” serving as the central criterion.

 

In practice, when conduct involves only personal belief or expressive activity and does not produce a significant substantive impact on others’ rights, courts tend to permit the exercise of individual freedom. By contrast, if the conduct infringes upon the equality rights of a particular group, or produces exclusionary or deterrent effects, courts apply stricter scrutiny and prioritize the protection of equality. In the so-called “gay cake” case, the court further distinguished between “refusing to convey a specific message” and “refusing to provide services based on identity”, thereby underscoring the boundary between freedom of expression and anti-discrimination norms.

 

This article ultimately argues that in implementing anti-discrimination regulations, Taiwan’s legislation and practice should adopt “legitimate aim”and “proportionality” as operative principles, drawing on the UK model that centers on the “degree of impact on others’ rights” as a key standard. At the same time, Taiwan should strengthen the localized practice of human rights through “internal cultural interpretation” and address the structural power imbalances inherent in discrimination cases. Such an approach would reconcile substantive equality with freedoms of belief and expression, while enhancing the stability and practical operability of legal norms.

 

Keywords

Anti-Discrimination Law, Equality Act, Equality, Substantive Equality, Private Sphere Discrimination, Service Discrimination, Balancing Rights, Proportionality