Originally posted by FreakyKBH
For the sake of the argument, remove "moral" and replace with "blue."
If God is blue, we define as blue anything which approximates an alignment with God.
If something is not blue, we do not see an affinity with God.
But we wouldn't expect God to be red and remain God; He would cease being God and become something other.
Our free will is restricted: ...[text shortened]... He was neither programmed or created, so that eliminates any notion of dependency.
He just is.
If you simply stipulate that God is definitive of morality, then yes it follows that God cannot be immoral. In that case, He cannot fail to be moral, anymore than a defining rod can fail to be the unit of length that it defines. This makes morality arbitrary, pace the Euthyphro dilemma; but that is not my main concern here. It makes God a moral entity but just in virtue of stipulation. He would not possess moral freedom in the sense Suzianne requires in humans; in a sense that requires having live options of doing moral right AND moral wrong. What you outline may or may not be what Suzianne endorses, but the end result is, I think, consistent with her view in this regard.
Now, here's the actual issue, which you conveniently stopped short of addressing. How is it that moral freedom is such a critical good for us if our supposed moral exemplar and the very embodiment of all that is good does not even exemplify it? Also, how can it be that moral freedom is a precondition for love if God, the supposed embodiment of things like love, does not possess it?