My questions was rhetorical. Like Ghandi, I believe that the concept of “eye for an eye” benefits only the manufacturers of artificial optics. I pointed out as an example of how he was essentially being hoisted by his own pitard and getting stung by the exact same thing he envisioned befalling another.

Are we in a tit-for-tat fight or can we be above such a fight? Perhaps someone should have gone up to him and told him tactfully that this was a gay friendly establishment and we will serve you even though we consider your stances on gay issues to be morally wrong.

Tim has a very good point.

I wonder if they know they are talking about two different things and don’t care, or if they really are too dense to realize it’s not the same thing.

I’d remind him that gay men aren’t all that casually attracted to apparent straight men, especially like him. So he’s QUITE safe.
The most important fact:
And most straight women aren’t attracted to him either.
And considering Campfield’s own marital status, that’s no lie.

That one always shut up the bigots especially about foxholes, showers and locker rooms.