Serving in the military is a right, that can be given or taken away. He’s trying to take it away. Whether you think it is harmful to not be allowed to serve in the military is totally besides the point, its a right he’s trying to deny them and that was what’s under discussion.
I’d agree it isn’t “harmful”, when you think about the risk it poses to your safety its basically the opposite if harmful to prevent someone from joining the military,. I’m of the opinion that anyone stupid enough to want to serve in the military (obviously not talking about situations like WWII etc) should be allowed to.
But that isn’t the point here.
The point about the bakery and First Amendment, from the article I posted:
The case could have potentially enormous repercussions — opening a big loophole in anti-discrimination laws, particularly those that protect LGBTQ people, by letting business owners cite religious or moral justifications to discriminate.
If there gradually becomes an atmosphere in which there is less tolerance of gay or trans people you could see plenty of businesses decide they will refuse to serve these people. We’re not talking about just bakeries here, it could be pubs, restaurants, Internet service providers, phone companies, petrol stations, airlines, train companies, banks, insurance companies etc. Of course this may well not happen, but we once did hold horribly discriminatory views and practices towards LGBTQ people and I don’t have total faith in society to never go back to those days. Progress isn’t permanent or irreversible.
In legal systems the setting of precedence can be incredibly important, so this would be a serious matter simply because of the potential harm that could arise.
But on this point I will accept there is debate and what I’m saying could be viewed as being speculation, but I’m taking 3 out of 4 of the points I offered as being solid (obviously I’m leaning to 4/4 given what I’ve said).