No, the title implies that they are Catholics - in the article they explicitly tie their behaviour to their Catholicism.
They might not be representative of the entirety of Catholicsm, agreed, but they are representative of a significant 'brand' of it - why should Catholicism only be associated with the acceptable (to us) actions that are done in its name?
Otherwise, as I say, the word Catholic becomes meaningless: if it can only ever refer to those things that represent all Catholics it becomes a synonym for 'Christian'... but because of the variety within that it becomes 'Abrahamic devotees' which becomes 'religious people' which becomes 'people who believe unevidenced phenomena.
If there actions were out of kilter with the predominant teachings of the authorities that Catholicism recognises then it might have been unfair, but whilst the Papacy has advocated tolerance and acceptance, it still describes homosexuality as 'intrinsically disorderers'. That's a pretty fundamental discrepancy, to say 'we accept you, but you're intrinsically disordered'.
You can accept gay people, and claim that's your Catholicism or you can reject gay people and claim that's your Catholicism - if they were the only people rejecting homosexuality and claiming it was for their religion you'd have a case, but they are far from the only ones.
O.
