You distort facts to imply that they mean something other than what they mean, then act like you expect us to believe your "interpretation". For example, I don't really care what the Democratic party claims - I don't vote any party's line (nor do I support Obama generally speaking, except by comparison to some), and I look at voting records instead of claimed positions - but I doubt you'll find many on either side of the aisle who disagree with the claim that they support the constitution. The constitution explicitly gives the Judicial branch the ability to do what it did to Proposition 8 (overturn it on the basis of higher law). This is to prevent the tyranny of the majority over a disliked minority group, which is one of the obvious failures of a pure democracy. As for "activist judges", you do realize that 5 of the 9 current justices were Republican presidential nominations, right?
Oh, and lots of people who call themselves "orthodox" or "fundamentalist" members of the religions you listed are fine with gay marriage. *Your* view might be that this is inherently contradictory, but their view is that however unrighteous those people are is a matter between them and God but secular law should be fair to all, or that a God of love would not turn His back on somebody on account of who they love, or any of many other arguments. You will probably find many more such people like that than you will find people who believe that the wrathful or gluttonous are nearly so bad, and that (heterosexual) adulterers deserve death. As such, it is quite obvious that religious folk can go about their daily lives without trying to enforce their religious beliefs on others. If you personally cannot, that is a failure of you personally, not of society or even of religion.
Oh, and the bit about tolerance? You really didn't think that part through, did you... it's about creating a tolerant society, not about personally tolerating everything. You present a false dichotomy: tolerate everything including intolerance, or don't be "about tolerance". Try this thought on for size: "we advocate tolerance towards every individual's nature, but oppose those who choose to be intolerant of the nature of others." It may help some people to think of it as advocating tolerance towards the ways in which God created us, and opposing those who are intolerant of some of God's creations. After all, sin is supposed to be about (making the wrong) choice, right? Are we not innocent and pure, until we choose to be otherwise? Well, religious belief is a choice. Sexual orientation is not.
Finally, there's the fact that you cite Fox News, which is just stupid around here. Even assuming that the story was both accurate and unbiased (having read both sides, Fox's account is generally the first but far from the second), that's just asking for trouble. The stories were widely reported; you can find better sources than that.
For the first story, Emmanuel is, to the best of my knowledge (though IANAL), not allowed to deny or revoke business licenses on the grounds of an implied intention to discriminate; an actual act of discrimination or at least a policy requiring it would be required first.
For the second story, that's straightforward: if you run a business open to the public, you are not permitted to discriminate against certain classes of people and refuse them service. This has probably been law since before you were born, in the case of racial discrimination (incidentally, at least one religion in the US held that black skin was the "mark of Cain" and thus they were justified in refusing to interact with them) and for that matter in the case of religion (which, unlike skin color or sexual orientation, is a matter of choice) or several other classifications. Oregon had simply expanded the list of classes against which a public business may not discriminate to include sexual orientation. If "Sweet Cakes by Melissa" had in fact been a Christian bakery - that is, a religious entity only open to Christians - they would probably have won their case. They were not.
For the third story, I'm amused that you chose an article that, aside from using a deliberately inflammatory leading question as a title, really doesn't support your views at all. The conclusion of that article is essentially thus: "he stepped down because of internal opposition to having somebody whose expressed views were contrary to company policy running the company". Or, in a simple answer to the title headline (and usually the right answer, when a headline asks a leading question): "No".
I'd congratulate you on reading something other than Fox News, but it looks like you didn't actually read that article before linking it. Oops.
Speaking of Fox News' credibility (off-topic but it was fun doing some research), I'll grant that the popular version of the story of Fox News winning a court case on the right to intentionally spread lies appears to be misleading, but some digging suggests that Fox does not, in fact, believe themselves under any requirement to tell the truth. The Fox News station WVTV was sued after it fired two reporters for threatening to tell the FCC that they were being required to insert untrue material into their news stories. WVTV won the lawsuit (on appeal) on the grounds that the reporters where not whistleblowers (which would have protected them) because “We agree with WTVT that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news – which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” – does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102.”
http://www.campaignfreedom.org... (see comments as well)