In the case of gay adoption sentimentalism would get the right answer if you went by what would feel right for the child rather than what would feel right for the prospective parents. Why should adoption be focused on affirming the parents and ignore the welfare of the child? Because Christians think it is wrong so it must be right.
You are shifting the subject here. The original question is, "is the church actively engaging in activities designed to use state pressure to make the lives of gay people worse." You were previously denying that they were engaging in these activities, you are now arguing they were engaging in these activities but they are justified in doing so due to their beliefs that they are advancing child welfare. Why they are doing it, is mostly irrelevant to whether they are doing it.
I don't think I've ever discussed with you what I think the law should be. My fantasy world is that the church flips on this teaching like the Protestant churches did on miscegenation. And 100 years from now Catholic conservatives are arguing that the church was always approving of gay rights, sure there were some theologians in times past that disagreed but it was never a teaching of the magisterium and no the church didn't actually order the burning of gays in the 16th century....The flip is a fantasy. The Catholic church can't flip teaching like Protestant churches can. What I see as possible100 years from now. Guys like you will look at the late 20th century and find "proof" that the Catholic church was pro-sodomy and pedophilia. With all the reaction to the scandals it should not be too hard to find quotes to support this. Then the point will be made that the Catholic opposition to homosexuality was a novel idea invented in the late 20th century for some unknown reason. That the real Catholic tradition was pro-gay and pro-pedophilia and these backward Catholic bishops should just admit they are wrong.
Another possibility that I'd be very happy with is that this teaching becomes so widely disputed by so many agencies in society that it is just ignored by the Catholic population. Masturbation is still technically a mortal sin, but the societal approval for masturbation has grown so strong that churches are unable to make headway against the societal trend on these issues.
The situation you are describing where the Catholic church and other churches still preach actively against homosexuals and their teachings are widely followed by religious society, while secular society is left having to defend homosexuals via. the law is not my fantasy world at all. That's very close to the situation we've been living through with abortion for the last two generations. Or the situation we've been living with with regard to alcohol since the 1750s.Again these are not good parallels. Teaching that abortion is wrong is not illegal. It is getting there. The denial of government funding to Catholic relief agencies because they oppose abortion is a very large and very stupid move in that direction by Obama. For someone with an expertise in constitutional law Obama is amazingly clueless about religious freedom. Harvard Law really should give him his money back. He just does not get it.
That being said even if this were the situation, there is no insurmountable conflict between gay rights and freedom of religion. There is nothing unique about a church wanting to engage in activities that are disapproved of or criminal and there is an already existing body of law that covers this. The same laws that made it possible for Catholic churches to get communion wine during prohibition would cover them with regard to the gay rights situation.
Assume that homosexuality became a protected class under civil rights law, in precisely the same way race or religion are; which is actually a bit stronger than most homosexuals are even asking for BTW. At that point discrimination solely on the basis of sexual orientation would be illegal for commercial for profit private entities it would still be perfectly legal for churches and religious institutions. So Our Sister of Mercy Orphanage (from here on OSMO) can continue to only give children to heterosexual couples with full protection of law. The state has no ability what-so-ever to challenge the teachings of OSMO . For the state to require OSMO to change their practices or shut down the state would have to have a compelling interest in having every adoption agency provide children to homosexual couples which is a bar they are unlikely to meet. So no, there isn't going to be any persecution.This has already happened in Illinois and I believe Massachusetts as well. Catholic adoption agencies have been closed down over this issue. So I am confused as to why you still think this could never happen. The one constant is that assurances like you are giving here almost never hold true.
Not being awarded a municipal contract is failure to get an award it is not religious persecution. In other areas like hospitals this sort of thing is happening more as churches are appealing to narrowing segments of the population and alienating others they are losing their positions of privilege given to them as institutions that are seen as benefitting the common good.
They would in effect being demoted to the role of niche public interest institutions like PETA. No question that would be bad, which is why people like Sister Keehan who actually understand the law work to prevent that sort of thing from happening; while people like Cardinal Dolan in effect does his best to make sure it happens. This is a choice for the Catholic church does it want the freedom to do whatever it wants that comes with being a niche institution, or the power and privileges of being an institution that works in the broad public interest. Right now the church is divided essentially arguing it should have the autonomy of a niche and the privileges of a broad institution; and denying that is not denying freedom of religion in any sense.They just want the freedom to be Catholic. What good are power and privilege when you can't use them to do what you know is right? You can only use them to do what society lets you do. That is you may only have this position if you accept a secular definition of right and wrong. Cardinal Dolan understands that this means giving up the very essence of Catholicism.The world is full of people who gained power by making so many compromises that in the end they fail to make a difference. Our society has produced so many of those they are confused by people who actually believe something.