Here is an example from the UK, August 2013 (not sure what the current status is). I have no dog in this fight but to me this does not seem like tolerance on the part of the gay couple, this action comes across as somewhat spiteful.
"Millionaire gay fathers to sue the Church of England for not allowing them to get married in the church.
The first legal challenge to the Church of England's ban on same-sex marriage was launched today - months before the first gay wedding can take place.
Gay father Barrie Drewitt-Barlow declared: 'I want to go into my church and marry my husband.' He added: 'The only way forward for us now is to make a challenge in the courts against the Church.'
The legal move means an early test for David Cameron's promise to the CofE and Roman Catholic bishops that no church would be forced to conduct same-sex weddings against the will of its leaders and its faithful.
...
'It upsets me because I want it so much - a big lavish ceremony, the whole works.'
You'd be surprised, some people think non-profits shouldn't be allowed to follow their beliefs (if those beliefs discriminate against whatever the cause célèbre is).
The Commonwealth has different restrictions on interference with churches. There is no constitutional guarantee in the UK. Similar to how common law countries generally limit freedom of expression to not include hate speech.
