He was out of his depth
Having got out of his depth, he dug himself in further by trying to make out his "conservative" facts were being undermined by some sort of liberal conspiracy. You don't get some special status for your argument by pretending it is somehow protected political speech. You can't negate arguments against misogyny simply by calling it "conservative values" any more than you can those against lynching by calling it "traditional justice" . I really don't know how that affected his working relationships with his colleagues, but I can see it might not have gone down too well.
I can picture myself being crucified for trying to 'bum a fag'
You don't have to: see Rule 34.