It's honestly just a bad analogy on his part. Bruce may agree with homosexuality-affirming theology and argue strongly (or even rightly!) that it should be ado

It's honestly just a bad analogy on his part. Bruce may agree with homosexuality-affirming theology and argue strongly (or even rightly!) that it should be adopted by his denomination, but denominations exist precisely so that they may create standards of unity in hermeneutics and interpretations. That's the whole purpose of belonging to one. If you openly defy their positions or teach in opposition to them, you shouldn't expect to remain a part of that denomination—whether you know it or not, you're advocating for a new sect. I think painting what happened as the work of some wilely, ill-minded lawyer is either extremely naïve or disingenuous.