They conflate "not interested" with bigoted, which is wrong and very delusional.

If I understood it correctly, the argument of the article is that the movie bombed not because it was "gay" centered but because it overtly attacked anyone who didn't like that fact. If it had been just as gay centered without doing this, it would probably have done better. I'm not so sure about that, but the case is worth reading. If the article is correct, we should not see the negative reaction to the film as being against gay people so much as being against attacking anyone who isn't gay. In other words, the reaction doesn't show a lack of tolerance toward gays but, rather, a lack of tolerance toward the intolerance of gays toward others.