In another thread, the question was posed: So LGBT is a personal life style choice so what? Rather than hijack that thread with a long tangent, I thought it better to start a new one. It seems the question of whether or not sexuality is a personal life style choice or something that is inherent is really a question of whether we, as a society, should be allowed to discriminate based on that property or not. If something is a choice, we seem to be ok with discrimination. If something is not a choice, we seem to be more inclined to protect it from discrimination. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin (including membership in a Native American tribe). The EEOC has taken that list and generally expanded it to include these items: Not OK to discriminate - Age - Disability - Genetic Information - Harassment - National Origin - Pregnancy - Race/Color - Religion - Sex Local state and city laws can be even more protective but not less. This leaves us with many things that it is ok to discriminate on however. OK for discrimination - Height - Physical abilities - Physical appearance - Weight - Health - etc, etc, etc The question then becomes: Why does sexual orientation or preference belong on one list and not the other? This is why the question of "choice or not" becomes so important. Generally the courts have decided that there must be a good reason for discrimination when these have been challenged. Where good reasons have been shown they have generally held up. BUT ... a lot of people would argue that 'religion' is just as much a matter of 'choice' as is sexual preference. People change religions all the time. They change for personal whims, for marriage, for family, and sometimes they just lose faith altogether. So my question is this: What reason is there for having LGBT rights on the 'ok for discrimination' list that would not also apply to religion?