Understand how to argue religious bigotry
1. In the court cases of the leading Nazi Germany leaders in Nuremberg, the defendants infamously claimed blamelessness because they were just following orders. Blame their superiors. Hitler was dead.
The judges rejected this defense. If you follow an immoral order, you are guilty. This was in 1948 established for all eternity for all of humanity.
Command responsibility is a concept that was established too. It jives finely with the idea of actor’s responsibility.
2. But what if you claim that G^d ordered it? Typically, people will say that the religion forces them or that they believe this is G^d’s will.
If you’re hearing voices commanding you, you are innocent by insanity. But otherwise, tough luck for your religion. You can’t murder someone (also not emotionally) and get away by claiming that G^d wanted this.
By the way, no god is immoral. Maximally, human misinterpretation may make god come out vile. But for argument’s sake, let’s say He issues an immoral decree. Then He Himself wants you to reject it. Abraham does not agree to slaughter his son, Heaven forbid. He’s just calling His bluff.
3. Self-proclaimed religious people have no legal defense to be immoral ‘because G^d demands it’ of them. Any devote person, especially any religious leader or teacher, who spews bigotry, needs to be prosecuted and pay for the damage s/he caused, including emotional suffering.
Legally and morally, there is no difference between religious leaders who call upon the religious to murder homosexuals or to ostracize them.
Society (and any decent religion) must demand protection of the weak.