Hey, remember the Civil Rights Act? That was kind of important, right? Well, it might be time for a little refresher.

On Monday, April 19, the Supreme Court entertained the case of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, which deals with the question of whether anti-discrimination measures should be weighed more heavily than federally funded organizations’ prerogative to decide who can be included or excluded for membership. The Christian Legal Society, a student group at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, claims that it has a right to be recognized as, according to the Huffington Post’s “Court Splits Sharply On Campus Christian Argument,” “an official campus organization with school financing and benefits.” CLS filed its case in response to UC Hastings’ refusal to officially acknowledge and finance the group on grounds of its barring students because of religion or sexual orientation.

CLS members holding leadership positions and/or voting rights must sign a document affirming their Christian faith, part of which states that “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle” is at odds with the values of the group. You’ve probably guessed, but “sexually immoral lifestyle” means anyone who’s not cranking out God’s children in a heterosexual, legally recognized partnership. So yes, they mean to say that a homosexual partnership is not OK and is enough to warrant suspension from the group.

So, let’s review. A group wants to choose its members based on belief and status, fine. But that group also wants to be eligible for federal funding. Pause. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act bars discrimination in programs receiving federal money. Sounds like we have an issue.

Accordingly, UC Hastings Dean Leo Martinez claims that rejecting members on the basis of sexual orientation is indeed discrimination. Countering this, CLS attorney Greg Baylor states that it is not discrimination for a belief-grounded group to require that its members share its core values.

Baylor would have an argument if the point at issue was only about belief. But that’s not quite the case. To strengthen his point, the CLS attorney used the hypothetical example of student political groups, comparing the situation to requiring the College Republicans to allow a Democrat to be their leader.

I’m not sure what law school this guy went to, but his analogy could use some work. Let’s say groups have a right to choose their members based on belief. Beliefs are not something we are born with, but are views we come to hold based on an indefinite number of environmental factors, such as home environment, schooling, etc.

Consequently, beliefs involve choice and the potential to change your mind about a perspective you previously held. I can choose to eat an MSG-laden meal from Asian Kitchen the same way I can choose to believe that Jesus Christ is my savior (I choose the former and not the latter, but they are certainly not mutually exclusive).

Beliefs are therefore choices we can argue about or take a stance for or against. I choose the possibility of not going to heaven (you win some, you lose some), and I choose not to mitigate my soy sauce consumption. Due to the choice involved, there is room for disagreement and alternate courses of action. Conversely, you can’t tell me that you disagree with my hair being brown, or my skin being white. I can make a trip to UTan and get highlights, but I can’t change the way my hair grows out of my head or the way I look before I take a UV bath.

Because it is impossible to agree or disagree with something that is not changeable by means of internal choice or external pressure, CLS has no grounds for an argument based on belief, because homosexuality is not something one chooses to uphold.

Furthermore, Baylor’s claim that permitting gay students to have an office-holding or voting role within CLS would be tantamount to asking the group to withdraw from their Christian faith. This does a disservice to the plurality of Christian belief. While the traditionalist Christian view is that homosexuality is an immoral straying from the “sacred union” between a man and a woman, there is, needless to say, a plethora of varying interpretations of the Bible, and, accordingly, many different definitions of what it means to be a Christian.

Different branches of Christianity have embraced the LGBTQ community and have advanced interpretations of the Bible that support their positions. For instance, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America recently removed its ban against having LGBTQ leaders, which is just one of many examples proving that homosexuality is not by definition at odds with Christianity.

Unless we are a society of masochists, there is no choice to be made between a life of constant stigmatization, exclusion and lack of basic legal benefits, and one of automatic inclusion and recognition within the status quo. To treat homosexuality as a mere lifestyle decision is not just to discriminate, it is to willfully deny reality. Understanding this, it’s simply not possible to argue that barring members on the basis of a natural and non-transient status — not a possibly changeable belief or opinion — is not discrimination. And seriously, if you really hate gays, don’t apply to law school in San Francisco.

Hannah Shtein ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in philosophy.