Oh right, that article! Sure, but if I'm making assertions about organizations like Stonewall, I'd rather cite them directly, rather than indirectly from an Economist story.
A) You weren't making a comment about Stonewall, but about some link that you'd found on Stonewall.
B) I, OTOH, was commenting about Stonewall, pointing out that it seemed a crappy source. As such, quoting a known reputable source's judgement of them seems far more prudent than the primary source itself. They're not likely to say "We're a crappy source", are they?
(Heeey, I think I may finally have figured out Wikipedia's obsession with explicitly secondary sources.)
Yeah, we read the article -- where it was portrayed as over-zealous and at least somewhat discredited.