1. All bigotry is true to the people who believe it.
Didn't you tell me just a few months ago that you're just a moral relativist, not an epistemic relativist, and that my characterization of you as a relativist (without adjective) was unfair? If so, then you must be aware of the distinction between something being
true and it seeming
true to someone.
Consider, for example, the statements "I hate Jews because they sacrifice babies in their rituals" and "I hate murderers because they kill people". The former is bigoted and hate speech, the latter is neither. The difference is that the implied factual premise is false in the first case (Jews don't sacrifice babies) and true in the second (murderers do kill people). It does not matter that the former premise may seem
as true to the antisemite as the latter does to opponents of murder.
Now where on this spectrum should we place the statement, "I hate the Catholic Church because it has systematically treated child-molesting priests better than the children they molested"? I would place it in the second category, because the factual premise is true, whether it offends the church to hear it or not.
2. I suspect you did this on purpose, I am not quite sure. I did find it funny. "Love the Sinner, hate the sin" is a common rational for homophobic rhetoric. I don't find either version very consistent or compelling.
Yes, I did that on purpose. And if the factual premises of the homophobic rhetoric were true, it would
be a perfectly consistent position. For example, "hate the cancer, love the patient" is perfectly fine. But of course, the premises of anti-gay rhetoric are not true. That's the problem with the rhetoric, not the distinction between a group and its members.