I mean the military doesn't allow blind/handicapped people or women in combat either. Let's say FAIR decided that they would refuse to allow the military recruiters because the discriminate against women or the handicapped, would you have the same position?

Should the law schools be allowed to deny access to the military because they discriminate against women and the disabled and still be allowed to receive federal funding? What is the difference between not allowing homosexuals and not allowing the blind/papraplegic/handicapped/disabled, not allowing women in combat, not allowing the elderly, etc...?

So, FAIR's argument is full of it, It's not about DADT, it's about being anti-military. If the military dropped DADT, FAIR would sue about women in combat. If they dropped that, they'd sue about he handicapped. And so on and so on. It's all about the law schools wanting to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be able to deny access to the mlitary and to still receive the funding. It just doesn't work that way.

As for your "1960 racist" claim. Most segregation had been declared illegal by then. However, the military was segregated during WW2. If FAIR brought a similar suit in 1944 and said we won't allow the military because they violate our nondiscrimination policy, the decision would be the same as it is now. If they don't want the military, they don't get the dollars.(In fact, under the raise and support armies clause I'd say the gov't can probably require the law schools to host the recruiters regardless of the funding issue, if Congress so decides) In the meantime, they can work to repeal DADT. Until they do, though, it's perfectly legal.