No I don't think you missed my point, just that there is a very big difference between the killing of a character (Jack, Jesus, etc) and the prejudice of a social group (gays, Christians, etc). I was pointing out that crucifixion films may be anti-Christ, but not anti-Christian. Wrt the writers of BBM, one way or another they intended to kill Jack to serve the narrative. Additionally, Jack regularly appeared as being picked on (in the bar after the rodeo, the guys calling Jack a piss-ant, Lorene's father, Jack's father, etc, etc), and all of this was intended to present Jack as a character to sympathise with. And with this in mind I put to you that the film was anti-Jack, but where talking about a character here. So while you could argue that the film is negative towards Jack as a character I don't think people named Jack should feel concerned. In my mind though, anti-gay is too generic a term to be used in this way and to say BBM is anti-gay is to suggest a negativity was intended towards gay people, which I strongly dispute.
OK, I guess partly what divides us is a difference in interpretation of what it means to say a film is "anti" something. I see the distinction you make between Christ and Christians, Jacks and gays, individuals and groups. But to me, saying a film is "anti-Jack," or "anti-Christ," or that it's negative to those characters, it means the filmmakers' POV
opposes Jack and Christ. When clearly, those films sympathize with them. What they oppose are the forces and/or people that led to their deaths. So BBM is neither anti-Jack nor anti-gay, it's anti homophobia.
Am I making sense? In other words, if a bad thing kills some of the lead characters, that doesn't mean the film is anti those characters, it's anti the thing that kills them.
For example,
Titanic not anti-Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio's character), just because he dies at the end of the film -- on the contrary, it's pro-Jack, because it paints him as a sympathetic character whose death is sad.
Hotel Rwanda, is not anti the Tutsis and their supporters getting slaughtered, it's sympathetic to the Tutsis' tragedy.
Roots it's not anti-slaves. Michael Moore's movies are not anti the people he depicts as victims of whatever system he's taking on (the health care system, in his latest film), it's anti the system itself, even if that -- in the film -- is the (at least temporary) victor.
Those aren't even the best examples, because I'm blanking out on better ones. But am I making sense anyway?