...which is probably more relevant to the outcome of the case, and of which we know virtually nothing about: what's the evidence, documentary and other, of those assertions, such that they are not in dispute. I understand Kevin is prevented from divulging all the details, plus he sure must have to remain quiet about his own legal strategies. This part might very well be determining, and we outside observers know nothing about it.

Overall, however, this is still very important - because if those facts are upheld in court any outcome would be clear enough in regard to us.

Either they agree to continue to discriminate - bypassing the Constitution and setting a definitive position regarding MAAs; or they accept MAAs as a legitimate orientation and as such entitled to the same legal protections as others.