A few mistakes were made in this post, below I discuss those.
Michael's sexuality is purposefully not stated.
The only characters sexuality that is stated is Rich. There is no purpose to discuss characters sexuality when there is no relevance to the plot. They don't discuss Jeremy's sexuality either. They do not discuss any other characters sexuality.
This is so anyone can headcanon him as what they want. This becomes a problem when they add the pride patch.
Hey, you know Joe Iconis did not write any character headcanons. That is a fandom based activity. Just like any other fanbase, you don't expect the writers to take a headcanon seriously. Michael having a pride patch does not inherently make him gay! Some people wear the pride patch as support for others! #AlliesExist
(as it was more commonly used than the gay flag at the time)
The MLM flag was originally made in 2016, yes, but it's important to note that the flag only grew in popularity in ~2020. The flag was not officially seen as a symbol of it around 2020.
Giving him the patch, but then calling him just an ally, despite knowing the intention of the patch originally and that everyone is automatically gonna assume it's because he's gay, is a huge slap to the face.
This is a moment where the fandom needs to realize: that while there were a lot of interactions with the fandom, that does not dictate the choices of the writers, costumers, and actors.
Then he also puts on this stereotypical gay accent in the Broadway version...
Okay, pause. What makes a gay accent? What makes you so sure this was a gay accent, what do you define gay accent as?
But then he addressed the common headcanon that Michael has a crush on Jeremy, and he said that he plays Michael in a way where Michael loves Jeremy like a brother????
Having read George's original tweet and your following perception of it, I think you're misinterpreting George's statements on both Michael's sexuality and his relationship with Jeremy. You state that he "said that he plays Michael in a way where Michael loves Jeremy like a brother", and you are interpreting this in a muuuuch more literal sense than what it actually means. George states that "I had many male friends growing up that I, as someone who grew up with two sisters, loved as if we were brothers. And that’s the case for MY version of Michael. He loves his friend. Case closed." This does not mean that Michael sees Jeremy as a literal brother, but as a close friend and comrade- family, who he can trust. This is a small-scale found family trope.
As for George's statements on Michael's sexuality, in no way does George purposefully omit what Michael's sexuality is meant to be. He says it better than I ever could: "Michael’s preference doesn’t affect the course of the play. It is irrelevant. ... I felt it would be premature to stick a label on him." This does not at all suggest that George, or anyone else on the BMC production cast, are being "purposefully misleading" about Michael's sexuality. The only character whose sexuality is ever explicitly stated is Rich's, and that's because his sexuality is relevant to his story and growth as a character. Michael's isn't.
Keep in mind also that George's portrayal of Michael is based on his own coming out- if we're to treat his word on Michael as law, we ought to respect the context he plays Michael from.
