Here, in the final sentence of the linked artice, is the perfect example of a non sequitur:
Australia's equal opportunity laws prevent discrimination based on race, religion or sexuality.
Leave aside the idiotic choice of the verb "to prevent," which would be used here by no-one with practical experience of law. My point is that every preceding statement in the article contradicts the final one.
Try the simple thought experiment of replacing "homosexual" with "heterosexual", "gay" with "straight" (and vice versa) througout the piece. Would the BBC publish that? Particularly the wonderfully loaded language "...won the right to ban..."
Do the BBC's
propagandists journalists even read what they write any more? Or have they simply no shame? As a libertarian, I am happy for any publican to apply whatever criteria he pleases on admission to his private premises. Gay pubs would never need to go to such expense in a fully free society.
The idea that this publican has somehow been given a right by the benevolent State is typical BBC. So is the lack of shame.