Orientation As Religion

Richard Just’s final riposte to Jeff Rosen on marriage rights is, in my opinion, a knock-out punch. This point is too often overlooked in the debate:

Neither court found that homosexuality was immutable, even though most people who study the subject believe that it is. Instead the justices reasoned that–to quote the California court–"[b]ecause a person’s sexual orientation is so integral an aspect of one’s identity, it is not appropriate to require a person to repudiate or change his or her sexual orientation in order to avoid discriminatory treatment." In other words, the justices treated it much like religion–which, as you note, is considered a suspect classification, and therefore invites heightened scrutiny from courts.

Certainly my own religious faith compelled me not to lie about who I am. So should the consequence of such religious conviction be subject to overt government discrimination?