That said, I don't believe an app shall be removed because it may be deemed offensive (by whatever standards).
Or as Voltaire put it:
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."
Or rather, if you make it your missing to ban "offensive" apps and a "gay cure app" gets approved, then you look like an ass.
I guess in this case Apple's standard is that they remove apps that are offensive to their shareholders and customers.
So if Apple pretends that it's doing this approval for the betterment of the App Store, like a Shepard blocking out impure apps from its garden, then they'd better make sure Gay Cure apps are out, otherwise they are hypocrites.
Should Apple ban iSmokeit and other apps that facilitate smoking?
Banning apps like iSmokeit would be like imposing your morality on the rest of the world, even if there are well-behaved smokers out there that only smoke in their own private space.
On the other hand apps that help you quit smoking are OK, since smoking IS bad for you in the long-run and dependency on smoking IS a treatable vice.
I understand why people were upset by the Gay-cure app, as people would be angry about an anti-vaccine app, or a pro-Nazi app.
I am not in favor of Apple's app store policy precisely because it encourages nanny-state morality on the flimsiest of moral grounds: profitability.
It reminds me of John Maynard Keynes' attributed quote: "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone."
By your definition - it had thousands of downloads and the organisation that produced it has thousands of members who clearly do not find it offensive and that likely extends to tens or hundreds of thousands of evangelicals (if not millions).
That's how subjective works.
Any treatment / cure that is advertised as such (without BIG BOLD letters of warning) should be approved or banned by relevant organizations -- there's precedent for it, like Scientology's E-meters being required to be marked as a "religious device".
By my definition "offensive" is a notion or device that's used to spread hate or shame versus other people's condition, people which are really harmless for society as a whole -- since gayness is not really a disease.
That's contradictory - if it's offensive by definition, there is no room for interpretation by the subject and therefore it can not be subjective.
But not to the death. I'm busy that week.
I, on the other hand - apart from not buying their products - have the right to observe that Apple Inc represents a bunch of unprincipled hypocrits.
I hope this helps.