From the comments section on Thinking Anglicans, from someone who definitely does not love my kind:
"So, the alternative to the smug 'Love the sinner, hate the sin' mantra is to think that 'tax-collecting' is either morally neutral, 'not as bad as people make it out to be' or 'innocent, right, honourable, wholesome and good'?
Perhaps the real issue that Christ highlighted in his parable was the danger in dismissing an approach to God based on genuine contrition, especially when it casts us in a better light to contrast our public piety with the notorious misdeeds of others. We're all guilty of that."
So let's take a look at "Love the sinner, hate the sin" in action:
The whole "Hate the sin, love the sinner bit" bit is a rhetorical cudgel to clobber other people while letting us feel superior. See the example above.
I'm all for contrition. When you bear false witness against your neighbors (especially when you deliberately and publicly misrepresent their lives and their relationships), then you should feel contrite.
However, contrition is not necessarily an entrance fee for salvation. It's what we should feel when we deliberately harm someone.
God loves us the same way we love each other, in our entirety, because of and despite so much. Just as we do not single out aspects of each other to love and others to hate, so God does not either. Anything else is not love. It is something else.
Failure to conform to the demands of a Bronze Age purity code that cannot stand up to the tests of reality and morality is no cause for contrition.