That is correct. I will do so by means of example and also by means of showing overreach.
The group responsible for this and other attempts at legislating morality destroyed the terms "Evangelical" and "Conservative" on the west coast entirely and ensured a generation of Democrat voters.
Its not just "mean". These people were vicious. Their last gasp was to try to make homosexuality a crime punishable by jail time. It failed. Their actions caused the creation of a number of Gay Rights groups who persist to this day. They created an enemy for themselves. That enemy went on to win victory after victory. These constant attempts at legislating morality changed a state from red to blue.
Does this start making more sense now? The State where this took place has about 30% of its population in the "no religion" category and has always had the highest number of "no religion" people. What did the group sponsoring this legislation use as its reason for it? Bible verses mostly. Using religion directly as a basis for legislation turns these people off. Other means of persuasion are required.
Right now, the two fastest growing faith groups in the United States are Muslims and "no religion" with "no religion" far exceeding the growth of Muslims.
That's why I mention demography. Religion is something for older people. The kids are either leaving it or having no part of it in the first place.
My own personal suggestion is a more liberty-oriented approach like the one Barry Goldwater used. That seems to raise eyebrows among both the non-religious and a large number of liberals. I've had quite a bit of success talking up Goldwater in the middle of a deep blue sea.
There are other examples I can throw out, but let's start with this. I can move on to how a lot of non-religious people are mocked, discriminated against, and such. Heck, I can even give examples of Protestants flatting tires in Catholic Church parking lots.
Your first example is not relevant to any liberty interest, because it deals with the actions of government entities. Ideally, we would not have most of the government entities, starting with government schools.
Your second example related to obscenity and pornography statutes, including child pornography. This has historically been an area for legislation, and the fact that we have interest groups opposing any limitations on pornography does not mean it should not be an area for legislation.
I have yet to see anything in your posts, well-organized as they are, to indicate that the agenda of the “none” group comes down to anything but unlimited abortion, promotion of homosexuality, and (as “mrsmel” mentioned), “If your values are in opposition to mine, you’re a hater!!!”
I’m not disputing that this faction exists, but accommodating them doesn’t seem to me to be a legitimate interest of conservatism. If it comes down to it, the Republic will fall, and the “nones” can take their chances with Mexicans and Moslems. They might get their free abortions, since Moslems don’t care if infidels kill their offspring, but the public homosexuality is going to be a problem.