I don't see any grand nefarious plan to defraud here
I do not go so far as to assert that ADF is guilty of defrauding anyone. I am sure that they are acting well within the canons, but my point is their motives are rather mixed with respect to their the outcome of their clients (because ethical behavior does not necessarily mean the best behavior possible in terms of minimizing loss).
Your refusal to concede that ADF has mixed motives or that moral disapproval actually played a role in the Indiana RFRA is a bit bizarre and removed from reality. (It was not the only motive, but it played a significant role too.)
You remind me of Paul Clement arguing that DOMA was purely an administrative action for uniformity without any desire for moralization or disapproval of homosexuality. He is one of favorite Supreme Court litigators (along with Ted Olson and Neal Katyal), but he looked ridiculous trying to deny reality during oral arguments:
In discussing the origins of the law, Paul Clement, who represents the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, said that Congress’s key interest in passing DOMA was preserving the uniform treatment of couples in various states at a time when there where indications that some states might allow same-sex marriages.
But Kagan fired back in her questioning, telling Clement that Congress wasn’t preserving tradition, but departing from it when it jumped into the marriage issue. “The only uniformity that the federal government has pursued is that it’s uniformly recognized the marriages that are recognized by the state,” she said. Congress’ foray into the issue in 1996 was so unusual that it “sen[t] up a pretty good red flag,” she said.
A short time later, Kagan read aloud from the House Judiciary Committee report on DOMA. “Congress decided to reflect and honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality,” she said, quoting the report.
“Is that what happened in 1996?” she asked to gasps, “oohs” and some laughter from many in the gallery who seemed to think she’d managed a rare Supreme Court “gotcha” moment.
Clement said he was not claiming moral disapproval constituted a sufficient basis for the law. “The House report says those things,” he said. But, he added, “we’ve never invoked [the language] in trying to defend the statute.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/elena-kagans-doma-gotcha-moment-89383.html#ixzz3WAgbXipt