same-sex couples are equal.”); see also Watkins v. U.S. Army, 875 F.2d 699, 725 (9th Cir.1989) (“Sexual orientation plainly has no relevance to a person’s ability to perform or contribute to society.”) Plaintiffs also contend sexual orientation is immutable. As the Supreme Court acknowledged, sexual orientation is so fundamental to a person’s identity that one ought not be forced to choose between one’s sexual orientation and one’s rights as an individual — even if one could make a choice. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 576-77, 123 S.Ct. 2472 (recognizing that individual decisions by consenting adults concerning the intimacies of their physical relationships are “an integral part of human freedom”). Many federal courts agree with Plaintiffs’ assertion. See, e.g., Perry, 704 F.Supp.2d at 964-66 (<HOLDING>); Hernandez-Montiel v. INS, 225 F.3d 1084, 1093
holding sexual orientation is fundamental to a persons identity holding that title vii does not protect employees from harassment based on sexual orientation holding that allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex holding that sexual orientation and sexual identity are immutable recognizing harassment claim under equal protection clause based on sexual orientation