It sounds to me like if the G/S was not out of service, this accident would not have happened. Therefore, the airport shouldn't be allowed to operate without it. Period. The proof is in the pudding.
From outside the profession, and it is interesting to hear the view of a layman, it is an easy assumption to make - but wrong!
Unfortunately, even with a GS available, some crews at differing airports, when cleared for a visual, will switch off all the automatics and fly manually. It begs the question if they can't cope with it, why accept it.
It loads up the PF a little more, the PM suddenly has to do a lot more monitoring, and a similar outcome to the Asiana stuff up can easily ensue.
So in the SFO case, whilst possibly a factor for poorly trained or ill disciplined crews, it should not be a cause. The Korean media can crap on all they like about Autothrust problems, but sadly it seems most peoples original suspicions of the cause look likely to be true.
As many have said, if you can't fly a visual approach, even whilst monitoring the parallel traffic 1/4 mile ahead, monitoring X-runway take offs on 01, and getting your own aircraft on a STABILISED approach, you should not be operating that type of aircraft.