It appears you don’t comprehend English well. They wanted to switch rooms because of the vent problem, not upgrade.

It appears that YOU don't comprehend English well. Re-read this excerpt from the article and carefully note that the word "upgraded" was used:

"By this time, she knew that we were going to be writing a national travel column on our adventures on Amtrak. She said that they did have a couple of rooms that were not being used and most likely we would be upgraded to one of them." (emphasis added)

I cannot see where they “ID themselves to crew and passengers in the fashion that was apparent."

Time for you to see an optometrist. I guess you didn't see these excerpts:

"By this time, she knew that we were going to be writing a national travel column on our adventures on Amtrak."

Gee, I wonder how she knew that. Could it be that they were letting all and sundry know that they were gay and writing a national travel column?

"We explained who we were and explained that we were writing a national travel column on our experience on Amtrak and that we would be writing about “Ride with Pride” . . ."

Oh, and, just to be clear, is everyone on the train aware that Don and Ray are gay and writers for a national travel column?

"Then I handed him our business card . . ."

Just in case someone may be uninformed that they were gay and writers for a national travel column.

"we needed to know if we were going to be able to move to another room. He said that there were no rooms available. NONE! And we knew in fact that there were at least 2 rooms that were available."

And how did they know that? Did they have a copy of the manifest? Did they have access to the computerized reservations system, knowing when each room would be occupied and vacant and between which city-pairs? Just because someone looks into a room and observes that it is unoccupied doesn't mean that it will remain unoccupied for the remainder of the trip. Could these two have been even MORE presumptuous?

"we knew when he saw our business card with the word, GAY TRAVELERS on it, that he was not going to do anything."

Is anyone still unclear whether these two guys are gay and that they're writers for a travel column?

"So much for “RIDE WITH PRIDE” when the conductor was rather homophobic!"

So, because they didn't get a free upgrade, and because they "knew in fact that there were at least 2 rooms that were available" (even though, in all likelihood, they had no idea who may have been slated to board downline), they assumed the conductor was homophobic.

"We asked if he realized what type of national travel column we would most likely be writing up about our adventures on Amtrak?"

Oh, look! We have to advertise, ONE MORE TIME, that we're writers for a national travel column!

"So the Conductor gets off at we believe Raton, Colorado . . ."

I guess looking at a map and discovering that Raton is in New Mexico would be too much to expect prior to writing such an important national travel column. Who cares about accuracy?

"there were two available rooms available and that we could have either of them but would have to pay an extra charge for the upgrade!!!!!"

There's that word "upgrade" again. They were interested in an upgrade---as long as it was free. And has everyone been properly advised that they're gay and that they write a national travel column?

Just traveling together appears to be the cardinal sin in your mind.

What gives you that idea?

They didn’t really identify themselves by saying "Look at us!"

Re-read the article. They mention it multiple times.

The article is obviously catered to the gay community, so sort of hard to be “stealth” in the post-trip write up.

A post-trip write up is different than the actual train ride, and, by his own admission, they had to advertise, multiple times, on the train that they were gay and writers for a national travel column.

The closet queen in me has to wonder how you came across an article such is this.

It was posted years ago and I figured it would be fun to take a stroll down Memory Lane. Is that now a crime?

Plus it is like 7 years old, yet you felt the need to post it here.

Yeah, it's a slow news day so it's time to go over things from years past. Again, is that now a crime?

It’s well documented that many people who go out of the way to bash the gay community have their own sexuality issues they cannot cope with. Maybe you?

Did you get your psychology degree from an actual university or one of those outfits where everything is done online?

Or maybe you’re just a low life who hates people like this.

And now the name-calling begins. No, I don't hate gays. I have many friends who are gay. What I DON'T like are flamboyant a-holes (gay or otherwise) who like to throw their weight around because they think they're important and they get pissed off when they don't get a free upgrade.

Perhaps black people should only be allowed to work in the dining cars and be porters, and not ride as passengers.

You and I both know those days are over, although organizations like BLM and now public schools strive hard to make sure those topics are ALWAYS on the front burner and that we never forget those days. The more friction that can be generated over race, the better. This country will burn down that much faster, which is what a lot of people apparently want.