Again you choose a hypothetical case where violence is clearly advocated, to associate the implied conotaion to the current case which does not advocate violence. Moreover you reverse the political alliances of the parties apparantly implying that the situations are similar except for the personal prejudice of those who disagree.
If you try hard enough you might get some example where its not quite clear whether violence is advocated or not. This would enable you to upgrade your associative fallacy with a more subtle slippery slope fallacy.
But it is still self evident the Evangelicals were promoting repentance rather then violence.
You don't think that screaming the Bible verse in post #5 at homosexuals is advocating violence?