1) That would be a question for US courts, as all those companies are based in the us.
2) Yes.
3) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) Yes.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/un-adopts-religious-int...
How should I trust your words now?
This is a resolution passed by the Human Rights Council, but it is not a human right. It does not disallow anything. It talks about promoting and encouraging respect, deploring discrimination and violence, noting concern, recognizing contributions, etc. These are all soft, non-binding commitments.
The only actual obligation is "to prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion or belief and to implement measures to guarantee the equal and effective protection of the law", which does not conflict at all with freedom of speech.
It also includes "the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can play in strengthening democracy and combating religious intolerance", which seems to address your concerns.
I have seen many cases of criticism of religion equated with criticism of every person who happen to be tagged as person of that religion, and used as a reason to stifle speech.
In Canada and USA, the situation is reversed on free speech. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/derek-james-from/canadas-hypocr...
As I said, the only concrete obligation in the resolution is prohibiting discrimination. Speech is not discrimination, and the Human Rights Council has never claimed that it is.