[dware]

I'll bet you $1,000.00 you cannot find a case where a church in the U.S. was successfully sued for refusing to perform a wedding where the refusal was based on the church's religious beliefs.

The examples you cited are correct:

no one in the US has ever successfully sued a Catholic church for not performing a wedding where one of the spouses is divorced

But the divorced are not a protected class

no one has ever sued an Orthodox Rabbi for not performing an interfaith wedding

Interfaith relationships are not protected classes.

Both of your examples, as your most recent statement (you cannot find a case where a church in the U.S. was successfully sued for refusing to perform a wedding where the refusal was based on the church's religious beliefs) are correct. HOWEVER:

Race / skin color = protected class, and now

Deviant sexual behavior = protected class

Thus far, I've not heard of any church that has turned someone away due to skin color. If they were to do so, they WOULD be sued and regulated into oblivion. Same now, with deviant marriage.

In plain words, you are entirely missing the point.

[Lurking Libertarian]

No, you are missing the point. "Interfaith couples" are protected by the First Amendment, just as same-sex couples are now protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. That means they are protected from discrimination by the Government. No one is protected by the Constitution from any kind of discrimination by private parties; such protection exists only where there is legislation in force to that effect.

No federal legislation treats homosexuals as a protected class for any purpose. A few states have legislation treating homosexuals as a protected class for purposes of "public accommodations" (which is why there have been a small handful of suits against bakers and florists), but none of those state laws cover churches (and any legislation that attempted to tell churches who they must marry would be struck down as unconstitutional under the First Amendment).

My bet stands.