Today, in a decision that was shocking for many, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jack Phillips, a Christian baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The consensus was that when the state of Colorado ruled against Jack Phillips and in favor of the same-sex couple who he refused to serve, the state was not properly extending religious freedom. Neil Gorsuch stated, "The Constitution protects not just popular religious exercises from the condemnation of civil authorities. It protects them all."

However, this protection of the Christian religion completely neglects protection for same-sex couples, a group that is discriminated against far more.

When the Supreme Court allows bakers to refuse to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples, it validates the opinion that people can be treated differently based upon religious beliefs, people who are, in fact, simply born the way that they are. It's 2018, people--we do not choose to be LGBT+.

We were born this way.

Our brains are different.

Everything about us is different, and for better or for worse, we can't change it.

Let me say that again. We couldn't change the fact that we are LGBT+, even if we wanted to.

Therefore, this Supreme Court decision has allowed religious people to discriminate against people for the way they were born. We previously have at least attempted to move past this--it isn't legal to discriminate against African American people, or people of other races, based on them being born differently. It would also seem wrong to discriminate against interracial couples, though these couples definitely face discrimination.

Yet it's still okay to discriminate against couples of the same sex or gender.

Wedding cakes aren't even inherently a celebration of being LGBT+. A wedding is a celebration of the union between two people, not of the union between two same-sex or same-gender people. When gay couples get a wedding cake, generally speaking, it's not as if they request rainbows, Pride symbols, and "I'M GAY" written in large letters. Likely, the largest indication of the fact that the wedding is for a same-sex couple might be that there are two male or two female figurines atop the cake. Weddings are not a celebration of heterosexuality or homosexuality--they're a celebration of the union between two people who love each other.

See also: There's A Problem With 'Riverdale' And His Name Is Jughead Jones

You might say, "but Rachel, it's just a cake! They should just get a cake somewhere else and stop making a fuss!" And if it was just about a cake, I might agree with you. If this case was just about a cake, if it wasn't about anything else, I might be a bit more inclined to say that same-sex or same-gender couples should find a cake elsewhere.

However, this is about much more than just a cake. This is about the precedent we set when we allow people to discriminate.

When we allow people to discriminate based on the belief that people with a perfectly normal psychology are "on their way to Hell" for how they were born, we simultaneously place religious rights above human rights and allow people to treat same-sex or same-gender couples, and by extension LGBT+ people, as lesser citizens so long as a religious belief allows it.

Letting one person discriminate against LGBT+ people based on religion then lets as many people do that as feel that they want to. Plenty of people can use their religious beliefs now to say that they would rather not serve LGBT+ people, since the Supreme Court ruled that religious beliefs must be protected, even at the cost of the ability of humans to live without discrimination.

We are simply being ourselves, and now people can discriminate against us as they see fit.

LGBT+ people already have to contend with hate speech under the guise of "free expression." Ask any LGBT+ person--I'm sure every single one of them have seen social media posts saying that they are sinners destined to go to Hell, if not been told that in person. Being LGBT+ is not a life of universal acceptance, by far, because we, in America, do allow freedom of speech. We already have to deal with enough hatred.

Don't add to that hatred by setting a legal precedent for people to refuse service based upon who we are.