In regards to replies to the post:
1.) I said what I said, and I meant what I meant. Anyone with a vocabulary of over three hundred words got my drift.
2.) I amit to a minor inaccuracy or two, but they do not in any was detract from the bsdic theme of the post.
3.) For those of you that would want to argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, rather than discuss the substance of what I have asserted, I have no further time for you.
4.) In a nutshell, here are the major points in words of three syllables or less: You are free to practice your religion on a personal level whenever and wherever you want so long as it does not interrfere with someone else's practice. You are not free to use the power of the government to further, promote or enforce any tenets of your religion.
Period. End of discussion.

If you had used #4 as your original post I suspect you would not have gotten so much push back. I think most here would at least partially, if not completely, agree with the sentiment. However, you choose to single out Christians as the bad guys rather than oppose overreaching theologically motivated government policies. In addition you appeared to want to use the same overreaching government to limit the practice of individual beliefs in certain situations.

As far as gay marriage. It is purely an argument over the dual meaning of a single word. A religious ceremony or a legal contract. Nothing more.

It occurs to me that some people would love to live in a bubble, insulated from anything that offends them or their religious views. For them, I recommend founding a commune out in the country, surrounded by lots of acreage and your friends that believe as you do. You could get Instacart to deliver to your front gate, and Amazon to provide the other necessities of life delivered to you. You'd never have to leave your bubble..
In the real world, however, we are constantly bombarded with things that we don't like and are offended by. I dislike having Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormon missionaries coming to my front door. If I lived in Dearborn, Michigan, I'd probably be irritated by the five times a day that a muezzin calls the Islamic faithful to prayer. In my apartment house, I resented being woken up by the cries of my next door neighbor's wife in the throes of ecstasy that penetrated through the thin walls at 3AM.
These petty annoyances are just things that any society has to put up with. It's called life.

Nice try. However, as you must know, there are restrictions on almost every right, including the freedom of speech. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Likewise, I'm, sure that if someone stood up in the middle of your pastor's sermon and proceeded to cause a disturbance, you'd be escorting them out the door and filing a complaint with the local police.
The restriction of religious activity and norms upon the general society is one that is generally accepted, because of the vast number of differing sects and denominations and their beliefs, which vary in many ways and would be unacceptable if applied to the society as a whole. You are free to discuss your religious beliefs in public in a non-bimdomg way on any streetcorner you choose, in any airport (think Hari Krishnas), or with anyone you like ... you are not free to impose them on the population as a whole.