I am posting with Soulless' approval.
I'm not a member of operational staff, much less a member of the Disciplinary Team, but I feel the need to step in here and give my opinion. I'm also going to preface this with saying I am more than happy to be argued down from my position, as I understand it most likely won't be popular and I'm probably flat out wrong on some parts.
I will vehemently disagree with any punishment greater than a one week ban, and even then I feel a revoke is all that's necessary.
To me, the primary actionable part of their post is their use of moderately derogatory language. Yes, I agree, the user is most likely homophobic. Yes, I'd rather not have them on the site. But all they've done is use derogatory language in an otherwise benign post. This is most likely false equivocation, but not wanting to read something because a certain overarching aspect of it doesn't agree with you is not something that we can punish someone for. I myself can't read Third Law works because they clash with my personal headcanon in a way that doesn't let me enjoy the, Like I said, that is most likely false equivocation, but that is how I view it.
This post is a bit long, so I'll collapse it.
Reading and re-reading through the rules while writing this post, I keep seeing this part, and I feel it's important to note.
You will not be banned for having an unpopular opinion.
Homophobia is definitely a horrible thing and is wrong in every possible way, but it's also very unpopular, particularly in this community. Which leads me back to my first point. I want us to be extremely clear that we are banning or revoking the user because of the derogatory language they've used, and not for simply having an unpopular opinion. With this being the specific and only they've broken.
You can comment on any entry provided you are respectful to other users.
I'm sure they're going to dig themselves a deeper hole if they come back, but we can deal with them then. But for this offense, I think a revoke or extremely short ban is all that's necessary to communicate the fact that they've broken the rules and that we don't appreciate what they've said.
The biggest argument against mine that I can see is that people will see these types of posts and see the bigoted or hateful users, and not feel as welcomed or safe here. And that is something I don't want to happen. I'd be ok with the user having a longer punishment if this was the reason why. I ultimately feel we need to be very clear on why the person is being banned, with objective reasoning that can be backed up by the rules or policies they've violated.
I'd also like to express a grievance I have with staff response to this so far that is somewhat related to what I've said above. I feel the response so far has been too aggressive towards the user in question. I understand that this is an emotionally charged subject for a lot of people and that the user is most likely homophobic, But I am of the opinion that the vehemence towards a user from staff should never be greater than the original offense, whether the staff are in the right or not. In this case, I felt that our staff response has had more of an inflammatory tone than the original post, even though I agree with everything being said. I feel this shines negatively on the staff, as it shows us making decisions based on emotional subjectivity or bias and not on clear violations of rules.
And that leads me to a talking point that may be better suited to its own thread. After reading through the rules multiple times to make sure everything I've said is accurate, I've found that there are no rules specifically about community conduct. There are vague overarching statements about respectfulness, but with the two quotes I have above, I think this can give people the wrong idea. Changing the rules to better reflect what will get a person banned would be valuable and allow us to point to specific lines within the rule to say "This is where you went wrong."