Civil rights versus religious freedoms (cross-posted from Storm)

I read an interesting article the other day (courtesy of Fark.com, for anyone who's curious). Now that I've had some time to think, I would like to set out a reasoned position on this issue.

Basically, the issue here is one of civil rights vs. religious freedoms; some religious people believe that their "deeply held religious principles" give them the right to trample the civil rights of others. My choice of words has already suggested which side I support, but this is not a simple issue.

Let's look at some highlights:
1. 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.
This strikes me as deceptive reporting; my best guess is that the legal fees were for their own legal defence, and that the case was adjudicated without costs being awarded either way. I won't comment on the example itself, on the grounds that I don't have enough information (eg. even knowing who 'won' the court case).
2. A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.
This is the same issue as the Sariya Allen case which I discussed in my journal entry I smell a contradiction. That is, this is a question of job performance. If my religious beliefs forbid me from doing a job properly, then I am not suitable and should not apply for that job in the first place. By applying for a job, I am implicitly promising that I am willing to perform the job. Therefore, I cannot then use my religious beliefs to justify my refusal to perform the job. The clinic in Georgia did indeed discriminate against this psychologist on religious grounds, but it was relevant to the job. It is merely a question of job performance, and she chose to make herself less useful.
3. 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.
This is the same issue as above, to begin with - job performance. The difference lies in the means by which it was dealt with. A patient's sexual orientation is not a valid concern for fertility doctors, any more than it is for any other doctors; their job is to provide medical treatment for medical conditions, and this is therefore an issue of job performance. Incidentally, the wording is vague and possibly deceptive - we are not told how the case was decided, for instance.
4. 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.
This is a straightforward violation of anti-discrimination rules. I don't think it requires any explanation.

The online dating site eHarmony agreed to provide gay and lesbian matchmaking services to settle a complaint by a gay New Jersey man accusing it of discrimination. The new site, CompatiblePartners.net, started Tuesday. The site eHarmony, founded by evangelical psychologist Neil Clark Warren, does not provide a same-sex option. Warren said his research into successful relationships did not include same-sex couples.
As above, this is an issue of job performance. I consider it perfectly valid for Neil Warren to neglect same-sex matchmaking on the grounds that it is outside his expertise, and I disagree with the "gay New Jersey man" who complained. If Warren had a boss who wanted to provide gay matchmaking services, it would be perfectly valid to fire Warren for poor job performance; as it is, the question of job performance should simply have been left to the free market. I do not believe that every business should be obliged to fill every niche in its chosen market.

Superficially, this may seem to contradict my views on example 3 above. The distinction, however, is that in eHarmony's case the issue is inability rather than unwillingness.

Some scholars also point to Bob Jones University, which lost its tax exemption over a ban on interracial dating and marriage among students, even though it claimed that those beliefs were religiously grounded.
This is a straightforward violation of civil rights, and seems to have been dealt with appropriately. I quote this largely for context, since I'm about to quote and respond to the sentence which follows it.

Some legal analysts suggest that religious groups that do not support gay rights might lose their tax exemptions because of their politically unpopular views.
1. This is quite plausible, as (presumably) precisely the same would happen to any church which openly violated other civil rights in the USA today. Civil rights are not optional.
2. On reflection, I think the wording here betrays the writer's bias. Gay rights today are roughly equivalent to black rights a few decades ago, and few people today would describe racism as being merely 'politically unpopular'.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who supports same-sex marriage, said the Bob Jones ruling "puts us on a slippery slope that inevitably takes us to the point where we punish religious groups because of their religious views."
I consider this to be an example of sloppy thinking. Professor Turley is failing to distinguish between beliefs and actions. Religious groups certainly should be punishable for illegal actions, regardless of whether or not those actions are accepted or even required by 'deeply held religious principles'. I have the (unexercised) right to despise any ethnic group I choose, but this would not exempt me from the laws protecting any group from victimisation.

Bluntly, religious practices are subject to the laws of man. Certain religious groups object to this. This is the issue in a nutshell.

As always, intelligent discussion is welcome.