[totalcrepe]

> Personally, I don't think "well I'm comfortable, so it's okay" would be an acceptable response.

In the 1950's the underlying actions one speaker would have been "guilty" of to make these other speakers uncomfortable would have been what? A gay "indiscretion"? Associating too closely with other races?

If you are uncomfortable, that is primarily on you unless there is a rational explanation underlying the discomfort that is better than prejudiced nonsense like I am avoiding all gays or all homophobes. A portion of the society is uncomfortable with all social events, but we don't cancel them and do everything straight to online video out of deference to their discomfort. We at most try to do what we can to make them comfortable to the extent that they don't get in the way of the event.

My problem with this situation was the conference publicly taking sides and disparaging a particular speaker based on current political winds. Professionalism in running these things is avoiding any unnecessary public slight to anyone whether the society is anti-homosexual or anti-homophobe. It is simply not appropriate for a conference to judge a speaker or any evidence about them.

I think the resignation and reflections in the OP were very appropriate and I hope Kevin will return to organizing future events using this hard won experience.

(edit- I should note that I mean inherently uncomfortable with the other participant, I think it is fine for a group to exclude a participant who has a history of ignoring rules explicitly agreed to. But excluding someone who was "rude" in the past under no specific rules really amounts to ageism eventually.)