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?