I have some experience in areas to practice involving Title VII, ADEA, Title IX and the ADA, and was lead counsel on a 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 action, but I've yet to work on a 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 case.

Wow. :) I'm only familiar with 1983 (my favorite text ever, lol) and the ADA... don't suppose I could get you to give a short summary of the rest, perchance? ~gives puppy-dog eyes~

I'm interested to see how your civil rights case is going. Discrimination/retaliation based on the content of one's speech is, of course, prohibited by the Constitution, even if there is some other "pretext" for the state action, e.g. "faulty wiring," if you can prove it.

Among other proof is that they didn't bother to list other pretext in the court document as filed, "faulty wiring" or otherwise.

The two cause given are "speech" and "status."

Your "orientation," however is not a "suspect class" and is not protected by the Constitution.

Just as a hypothetical... (and I am not a lawyer)

...the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights was ratified 1992 in the US, attaining full force of law via article VI, I believe, US constitution. Article 26, ICCPR, asserts equality irrespective of any status.

...would this not make any class 'suspect class' and insitute protection by the constitution via article VI? Just curious; as prior stated, I am not a lawyer...

Furthermore, I look at it as a gift, because I used to merely sceptically view things reported in the media about people, whereas now, I have grave, deep-seated mistrust in it. The lies and material omissions regularly reported by the mainstream press is astounding.

Welcome to our world. ;) Sorry it's a bit darker than expected, lol... ;)

Basically, there's two factors at work. One is the "paid media piece" effect - this is usually found in stories regarding corporate product, and has a flipside, "paid silence."

The other - the one you're likely dealing with - is the "we'll revoke your press pass and deny you information if you don't destroy people for us" effect.

...the logical thing to do, if one has the financing, is to counter it with the "paid media piece" effect - all those "justifiable homocides" (common in most cities nationwide) make a fascinating bit of source material, and 9 out of 10 that the black community has suffered a disproportionate amount of "justifiable homocide" from the police.

...the downside to this being that officers prone to "justifiable homocide" are useful to politicals when creating staffing reccomendations for "anti-gang initiatives" - like when some street gang shoots the wrong womb-raider...

...so ya might want to save a few, to give the political players something to work with. Depending on the mood of your city, keeps 'em from complaining.

...it's the real world, like it or not. The serenity to accept what one cannot change is inevitable; the audacity to demand such work for you is acceptable, and neccesary.