I don't think things are quite as bad as that document reads. I don't buy the contention that all those assertations of discrimination are truly "Facts Not in Dispute". (Unless they are simply designated as such based upon legal technicalities of which I have no knowledge).

At the very least I don't believe sexual orientation (attraction to minors) is the sole determining criterion those listed use to justify their opinions. I believe an individual's criminal record and past actions play a much larger role than Kevin admits, I think he has a personal blind spot about this, downplaying the role of his own history in the actions taken against him. By no means am I saying what they did to him was legally justifiable, just that the situation is a lot murkier than it may appear (especially its genesis), and those who haven't been following his saga for years should be cautious in drawing conclusions.