Do you think that a distinction should be drawn between religion and the other classes protected by the 1964 CRA, on grounds of mutability? The argument can be made that one could at hypothetically change an attribute such as gender with complex medical surgery, but even then such changes are not typically recognized by law. Religion, on the other hand, is the only class that at least on principle could be changed at the option of the individual. What do you think the logical underpinnings of the law are insofar as "choice" is concerned?