This is a conundrum actually, freedom of religious worship vs
affirmative action. Its not right to stand one side and say its
persecution of a religion, assuming now the pastor is speaking
againts homosexuality, laying out groundwork in the church for
discrimination againts homosexuals, a clear violation of human
rights.
The French example is hilarious. How come no one speak up for the
Muslims, who are banned from wearing tudung, when Catholic nuns are
allowed to wear their habits as part of 'professional
clothing'?
A clear issue of separation of church from state, and I would be
disappointed, not because they might not remove it, but that if the
Christians would assume the title God to mean a Christian God,
effectively making US a Christian country. It would then contravene
what the Founding Fathers wanted, and instead of seeing the issue
as against Christians, it would then turn around against other
religions, especially those with no God in them.
What persecution? One group accusing the other guy of making
threats, and the other guy accused the first group of denying their
rights of speech. 
All in all, I find this the most convincing case of persecution.
Its a clear expression of his faith which has no implication on any
matter, and he got jailed. Another example of clear cut persecution
is that of a group of Filipinos expatriates who were caught
practising their faith in Saudi Arabia. Freedom of religious
worship is not allowed in SA, where Islam is the only recognised
religion. Any expression or other forms of practise will result in
deportation or even execution. The Reader Digest's article I read
detailed how one guy managed to get deported, while his relative
got executed at the end. Sad, but true.
Anyway, I think we got to discern between real persecution and
cases where its just two groups going for each other's throats.
Otherwise, anyone could just lump it all under 'violation of human
rights' and we could never help those who are really in need.