Yeah, I don't bother reading half he **** you type, because 90% of it is pointless fluff you feel the need to throw in to sound smart, and the other 10% is just cringeworthy **** Why don't you just type like a normal human being? We all already know you're an idiot.
And your definitions are ridiculous. Equality is a legal concept. It means that the law has to provide equal opportunity before the law for each of its citizens. If there's a legal hurdle facing one person that another does not face, and its due to no reason other than something like a social class, then it is the law's duty to ensure that person receives equal opportunity.
Furthermore, fairness by definition is a subjective measure. If all we care about is the labor-to-pay ratio, then sure - it's ridiculous for one person to make more. But if we remember that it's ridiculously stupid to be narrowing our vision to the smallest field possible, we see a much larger landscape, gain more context for that decision, and far more factors to gauge it subjectively against.
Marxism, for instance, is based on the concept of equal effort to equal reward, each measured to the capability and needs of a person. If you can give a lot, but need little, you give more and receive less. But it's equal and fair, because your effort
is in equal measure to everyone else's effort
There's a reason no one uses "fairness" as a judge of anything in a legal discussion. Because anyone with a brain understands that's idiotic. Life isn't fair. It never will be fair. The law is limited and can't account for nature. Our economic system is capitalist. We have different social classes and values.
Fairness isn't something to strive for, because it doesn't mean
anything. Equality does, because we've bothered to define it with hundreds of years of legal precedent.
Admittedly, the leave procedure isn't a reason to discriminate against **** people because it shouldn't be authorized in the first place. I was stating the biggest discrimination that people openly argued against.
Wait, so you DIDN'T answer the question, then? Because from what I can tell, all you did was point to "effects" of the DADT repeal and use them to show why it was unfair to the straight people for DADT to have been repealed.