“interfere” with freedom of speech.

For example, if I am a salesperson and I start political discussions with potential clients that causes the company to lose sails, I can and will be fired.

By way of another example, I could get a job working at a Catholic and exercise my freedom of speech to call Catholicism the devil’s religion (I am Catholic which is why I picked this example) I can and will be fired.

Employees have their freedom of speech curtailed quite a bit while at work.

Per Clarence Thomas:

“I join Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today “is … uncommonly silly.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to “decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ ” Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I “can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,” ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the “liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,” ante, at 1.”

That’s not written into the Constitution. That’s expressly saying not all rights ARE written into the Constitution.

Seriously. emaberk probably hasn’t even READ the Constitution, hence his glib desire to challenge Justice Thomas.

You are comparing training to a lifetime.

Apples and oranges my friend, apples and oranges.

Temporary living arrangements for a few weeks before going your separate ways to meet at the office in the mornings is significantly different from the close proximity in which enlisted men/women and officers have to live for years on end.

The problem with political correctness is that no one is willing to say what everyone knows.

There’s a reason you don’t bunk male and female soldiers in the same barracks. You’ll basically be throwing in young men and women together at the height of youth and fitness (i.e. attractiveness) – some barely out of their teens – and expecting them not to do what comes naturally. The answer is; you can’t. So you separate them into different barracks.

How do you do that with the 2% or 3% of the population that is gay? Create a gay barracks exclusively for them? Bunk them with their straight fellow servicemen? And afterwards, in either case, how do you ensure that Private Peter and Corporal Paul don’t start bunking together? What if Peter decides to leave Paul for L/CPL Percy? What if newly minted 1LT Patrick decides to ask Peter out?

Furthermore, imagine a battlefield situation where Patrick has to send his lover Peter – who is best suited for it – down for a mission that has a high possibility of resulting in Peter’s demise – will he hesitate – which could very well have deadly consequences for the entire platoon? Would he send Percy – his rival for Peter’s affection – down to do it instead?

And before you start shrieking about me being homophobic or indulging in stereotypes about gays, this is not a situation unique to gays. The above types of situation is exactly the reason why the armed forces go through enormous lengths to ensure that siblings don’t serve in the same unit. They don’t want a situation where Peter is placed in a position that means sending his brother Paul down to his death.