In the case of the justices in IA, same thing. Their RECORD has to be considered, but their unanimous vote in favor of equality IS sticking to the basic principle of Constitutional protection, not exclusion.

This judge is someone who has to be looking at Major Witt’s RECORD too. Her experience, and conduct as an exemplary member of the armed service. It’s a CONSERVATIVE value, to respect this record of service and the results of it, not just her orientation.

It IS not only un Constitutional to punish a person for doing something so responsible, AND competently, but what logical reason is there to do it?

The military is all volunteer. Somewhere in even the laws of the military, the person who has some objections to other service members, could be for all kinds of reasons.
Serving with women, Muslims… Jews, or felons. It’s the recruit that doesn’t WANT to serve who should have the opt out. Exemplary service members, shouldn’t be forced to.
How CAN the military reconcile the tacit way they approve bigotry, with having competent and willing service people at the ready?

But I digress. This judge is doing an example of doing what’s right, as opposed to doing what’s politically expedient.