If it makes you feel any better, I believe I saw where you were coming from and actually applaud it. You weren't attacking the principle that is wrong, it was attacking the method used to support the principle, which I agree, is using the wrong approach. These law students don't need military experience to understand law, but they should at least understand law, especially the supreme law of the land. Attacking denial of access based on "Constitutional Rights" is a weak argument, you are exactly correct. It also pains me how frivolously people invoke the term absent the actual understanding of what the US Constitution is and what it does. If they want to approach it with a law that does apply they should go back as recent as the Lyndon B. Johnson years, plenty of stuff there. Then they of course will run into the wonder acronym BFOQ, which when faced with that you're also correct, a little foreknowledge of what are legitimate requirements wouldn't hurt their position.