* A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney's costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony.
* A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.
* Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.
...Catholic adoption agencies forced to close in Boston
I'm raising my own kids with the teaching that sex is for marriage, but if I were a psychologist, I certainly wouldn't tell patients who come to me with issues related to their nonmarital intimate relationships that I refuse to discuss such matters. I keep kosher, so I don't eat pork, shellfish or mixed meat-and-dairy dishes, but if I were a nutritionist or dietitian, I certainly wouldn't refuse to counsel clients on healthful ways to prepare these foods. When you accept a job whose mission involves serving the general public, not just people of your own faith community, then you have an obligation to work with clients on matters which might involve facilitating choices of theirs which for religious or personal reasons you'd never make yourself. If you can't handle that responsibility, you don't belong in that profession.
(And why do I find myself doubting that for instance this psychologist would object to counseling an unmarried heterosexual about their intimate relationship, or that this Christian doctor would refuse to artifically inseminate an unmarried heterosexual woman in a committed relationship? Professional obligations aside, these kinds of ugly double standards are rife, and unflatteringly betray the prejudices underlying the supposedly prejudice-free values of those who hold them.)
* A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage.
While that's bad policy on UC's part in my view, students are not clients, customers or patients, and schools aren't obligated to treat them as if they were. Some prominent Catholic colleges, which receive plenty of government money and happily accept the many non-Catholic students who attend them due to their strong programs in fields of interest, refuse to recognize pro-choice or gay/lesbian student groups (nonrecognition basically amounts to not being able to use university resources to openly advertise your meetings, nor to formally reserve university facilities for them). While I think that too is bad policy, the damage done doesn't rise to the level of warranting legal intervention. In UC's case the openly exclusive nature of the group in question was probably the main reason for the nonrecognition.
...parents put in jail for refusing to allow their kids to learn about same-sex marriage
Although I don't recall a jail story, I do recall asking you about a story you posted in an earlier thread concerning parents who protested their children hearing a story in school about two 'boy' frogs falling in love and getting married, and I don't think you ever responded. Yes, in some grade schools students may hear about the fact that there are men who love men and women who love women, and that in some places they sometimes get married. So what? They might also be read a story about a day in the life of an African child whose father has more than one wife, or a biography of a famous person which refers to the fact that his/her parents never married. Are these parents going to object to those books too, since the family types depicted also go against what they personally believe in? I doubt it. These are not explicit, graphic sex stories we're talking about here, so the only basis I can think of for the objection is that these parents don't want their kids to hear any references to men falling in love with men--unless they're right there at hand to immediately follow up on how such feelings are sinful and unnatural, and so are people who are have them. But that's the parents' problem, not the school's.
How do you think children of such parents who grow up to be gay or lesbian are going to feel about themselves, after being taught attitudes like that? Such parents might (lie and) claim to have absolutely no negative attitudes towards gay people in general, but that's not the message they're sending to their children. Either they sincerely believe homosexuality is just a disease that can be cured, or else they haven't yet grasped the basic moral significance of the fact that it isn't.