The front page of the Kansas City Star this morning, February 16th, erroneously lumped together two types of discrimination that are not the same although both are based on so-called religious convictions. JE Dunn Construction opposes "[p]roviding insurance coverage for any birth control method that induces an abortion..." Last week in the Kansas Legislature they "debated a measure ... intended to ensure that business owners who morally object to same-sex marriage won't be punished if they refuse to serve gay couples." In recent history in the United States we do not allow discrimination against those who have a different racial or religious identity, things that cannot be readily changed. The state cannot coerce or expect me to alter who I am, and therefore businesses cannot discriminate according to my birth status or belief system. But protecting an action is not the same thing as protecting a status. I am personally in favor of the legislation requiring coverage for birth control. But it's protecting access to a type of health care, not preventing discrimination according to a state of being. The two are not the same. To allow discrimination against people by virtue of who they are opens the door to every religion accepting socially only their own members, an impossibility for a social fabric. If businesses can discriminate against gays because of supposed biblical prohibitions against homosexuality, why would they not be allowed to discriminate against those they believe to reject their Lord and Savior? The beliefs of Jews are surely more objectionable than the actions of homosexuals because Jews reject the core of Christian belief while gays and lesbians have different attitudes toward one aspect of life. The state has a compelling interest in protecting religious belief, and forbids discrimination on the basis of belief or sexual orientation. Equality may demand equal access to health care, but it's not the same argument as protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination.