When I was in Roman Catholic US grammar (elementary) school in the 1950s, the Franciscan nuns who ran it told us kids we couldn't be friends with the Protestant students from the public schools. They were sinners, heretics, had a mistaken belief system, and they were all bound for Hell, where we would go, too, if we befriended them, or had anything to do with them.
Nor could we enter one of their churches with them, which was a Mortal Sin. I can't remember Jews were ever even discussed during our instruction, and I didn't know Muslims still existed except in history books about the Crusades centuries earlier. Until I entered a public high school at 16 I never had any contact with non-Catholic kids.
Meanwhile at home, my parents were friends with everyone, had everybody over, from every religion and ethnic group including Jewish (though I don't recall any Muslims back then). My parents were the least prejudiced & bigoted people in the world, more socially liberal than perhaps half the people in the US are even today, and absolutely exceptional in the McCarthy-Republican America of over 50 years ago. I wonder, though, if they understood the conflict I was experiencing, between the private schools they were sending me to, and what I was seeing in their own lives.
In any case, on the question of religious intolerance versus sexual intolerance, can any intolerance be permitted to exist at all? And if the former BF of Englishness plays the Suni card with him, does not that same card say the BF can't be gay himself? That would indeed seem to be a hypocritical double-standard.
"My theology doesn't agree exactly with yours, so that's a gay deal-breaker. But it's also OK that I'm gay myself, despite my Suni religion not allowing it, cause I want to be gay."
This does not compute...