In 2012, David Mullins and Charlie Craig walked into Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, CO, and asked the owner, Jack Phillips, to design a wedding cake for them. Although Colorado had not yet granted permission to same-sex couples to marry, Mullins and Craig wanted to buy their cake from a local shop before they traveled to Massachusetts for the ceremony. However, Phillips refused to make it for them, stating that he never makes wedding cakes for same-sex couples because that would violate his religious beliefs, a personal guideline that he says is protected by his First Amendment right to freedom of religion. When the couple filed a complaint against Masterpiece, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission determined that Mr. Phillips could not cite his religious freedom with the intent to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation; subsequently, two Colorado courts of appeals upheld that decision. This fall when it begins its next session, the US Supreme Court will have a chance to weigh in.

Many people were shocked that the Supreme Court agreed to see the case at all, since last year they yielded much less ground by saying that they would “consider it.” But although this decision may have been surprising, this case is certainly not the only one of its kind: the Supreme Court has considered the right to religious freedom in regards to civil liberties in several past cases, including United States v Windsor, which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act’s Section 3, and Obergefell v Hodges, which found marriage to be a fundamental right that states could not deny to same-sex couples. Some have also drawn comparisons to Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores in which, unlike the previous two cases, civil rights was dealt a menacing blow. For me personally, the bottom line with this new case is that I don’t know how the SCOTUS will rule come this fall, but I do firmly believe that given past precedents it should side with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in saying that religious freedom should never be an excuse to discriminate against people based on who they are. In order to see why, let’s first break down Mr. Phillips’ argument in this case.

In the briefing provided to the Supreme Court, lawyers stated that Mr. Phillips is a deeply religious man who should not be forced by the government to choose between his faith and his livelihood. In addition, Phillips cited, in a New York Times video and a Washington Post article, other examples of circumstances for which he would not provide baking services, including adult-themed celebrations, celebrations that warrant an alcohol-based cake, Halloween goodies, or anything else that involves racism or atheism. For the Colorado baker and a number of other religious activists, it is then just a short jump to say that they are protected from participating in any form in weddings not between a man and a woman. However, I noticed that there is a fundamental flaw in their reasoning: to drink alcohol, to throw adult-themed parties, to celebrate Halloween, and even to some extent to harbor racist views are all choices that an individual can make. Sexuality, on the other hand, is not.

Time and time again I have heard some religious conservatives argue that homosexuality is in fact a choice, but the logic they employ has never made sense to me. To them, if homosexuality and by extension same-sex marriage are deeply-rooted choices, then to restore heterosexuality they simply need to convince the guilty party that their choices are wrong and that hopefully with enough prayer they might be cured. Granted, I am willing to acknowledge that this train of thought may make sense to some straight people for whom heterosexuality could just naturally seem like the natural sexuality; however, the more you think about this argument, the less it makes sense. By that logic, one could sensibly say that if a community trained, hoped, and prayed enough over heterosexual people that they could somehow be taught to like the same sex. Nor is sexuality genetic; as far as I can tell, the underlying factors that contribute to the development of sexuality, gender, and sexual orientation are still not very well understood in the scientific and psychological communities. Whatever the causes may be, one thing is clear: sexuality is no more a choice than race or sex are.

Furthermore, I am willing to acknowledge that religious people under the First Amendment should not, to a certain extent, have to choose between their faith and their necessities/livelihoods just because of a few federal laws; the American judicial system has already had a say in this. By law, Muslim women can wear a hijab for a passport photo, and devout Christians and Jews cannot be forced to work on the Sabbath. However, the judicial system has also weighed in on cases of discrimination quite a bit in the past; in fact, Craig and Mullins’ lawyers explained this concept best when they argued that “it is no answer to say that Mullins and Craig could shop somewhere else for their wedding cake, just as it was no answer in 1966 to say that African-American customers could eat at another restaurant.” There’s really not a whole lot more that I can add to that.

To me, this case should be over and settled by now, because the law seems to be firmly on the side of the happy couple. However, by electing to take this case, the Supreme Court has now begun yet another landmark legal battle in the war between civil liberties and religious rights. And even more unfortunately, since Americans have never had any way to directly elect their SCOTUS justices, the most any of us can do is watch it as it happens.