Hahaha. Fair play. I wasn't sure what angle you were coming from, and also I was severely sleep deprived when I was responding. I agree with you. And I also think that your position about the pastor of the church you are currently attending, and a lot of CHrisians like that, is right on as well: Consistency is important and it is important to maintain principle. And it's nice that you can see that even while you disagree intensely, instead of just calling him a homophobe :). We all have inconsistencies in our views; it's not so much that we are perfectly harmonious as that we are looking for the insconsistencies and a way to reconcile them or change our viewpoint. That's what matters.
This is where you lose me.
I'm not sure what you mean by "I think it's wrong as far as the Constitution is concerned". You don't think religious objections are Constitutionally viable? There's a two century long legal precedent against you on that... or is it something else you were referring to?
The original federal RFRA was in response to a number of judicial decisions regarding native american tribes: a land grab that went across sacred land, and unemployement linked to peyote test used in religious ritual.
Incidentally the RFRA was co-introduced by none other than Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy (in the separate Houses). Not exactly your fundamentalist Christians.
In fact, this is pretty much similar to the state scene: there are 20 state RFRA laws dating back to 1998, most of them not about homosexuality and not introduced by the "crazed fundamentalist" crowd. We have yet to hear anything about the mass deaths and deprivations that the LBGT SJWs are wailing will happen. The bill serves legitimate functions in our current legal framework. Most all the people protected by this bill in court cases were not Christian.
Anyway, end hijack. I don't want this thread to derail and turn into yet another monstrosity on gay marriage--but I'd like to hear your answer on the first part of what I asked above.