Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of males from the team and the goal of redressing past discrimination and providing equal opportunities for women.” Id. It is beyond question that redressing the disparate athletic opportunities available to males and females is an important governmental interest. See Mularadelis, 427 N.Y.S.2d at 464; see also Hoover v. Meiklejohn, 430 F.Supp. 164, 170 (D.Colo.1977) (noting that because the athletic opportunity for females has historically been limited, “the encouragement of female involvement in sports is a legitimate objective”). Excluding males from female teams is substantially related to achieving that objective. See Clark, 695 F.2d at 1131; Hoover, 430 F.Supp. at 170. But see Attorney General v. Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Ass’n, 378 Mass. 342, 393 N.E.2d 284 (1979) . For these reasons, plaintiffs have not
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that discrimination based on religion is subjected to strict scrutiny whether a claim arises under the establishment clause the free exercise clause of equal protection clause
B. holding that section 922k passes muster under intermediate scrutiny and would also pass muster under a strict scrutiny analysis
C. holding that nearly identical kansas statute did not violate equal protection clause when subjected to strict scrutiny
D. holding that such a classification could not pass muster under the strict scrutiny required by the massachusetts equal rights amendment
E. holding statutory classification of victim and a defendant involved in issuance of a protective order did not violate defendants equal protection rights
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.