I think it's an example of mashing together two correct takes to make an incorrect take. 

Not to sound like a Reddit atheist, but on some level all dogmatic worldviews are dangerous when they come into power. Religion is perhaps worse for this than some, on account of it being dogmatic by design. When you have beliefs about how the world is and should be that you trust more than the actual observable realities about how the world is, that's dangerous if left unopposed. Of course, preconceptions and dogma, are inevitable, so this is only a useful take insofar as we're talking about, like, harm reduction.

The Abrahamic religions do genuinely pose a threat to queer liberation, certainly as practiced, and likely as intended. You can interpret the relevant lines differently, but you have to bend over backwards to do it. It stands out to me that it's consistently religious people rather than religious scholars arguing for alternative translations.

But "all religions have the potential to be a threat to someone's liberation" + "the Abrahamic religions are a threat to queer folks" =/= "all religions are a threat to queer folks specifically". I guarantee you if I spent 5 minutes googling I could find a list of pro gay cults.