If that's all there is to it, no. But I disagree with your implied statement that adherence to a faith is equivalent to membership in a club. Membership in a club is a relationship between you and other people. Faith is a conviction that certain assertions are true. The two are completely independent.
Well, you're using "faith" in an equivocal fashion (as meaning both "belief" and "religious sect"). Adherence to a "faith" (i.e. belief) is not the same thing as adherence to a "faith" (i.e. religious sect). Surely one can be "faithful" in the first sense without belonging to a "faith" in the second sense.
But belonging to a "faith" in the second sense is very much like being a member of a club. And the rules of that club are the sect's rituals and commandments. It's that adherence to those that I'm primarily talking about.
It is possible to be a member of no "club" and still believe that the world was created by a supernatural intelligence, that this creator is an infinitely higher being than any humans, that consequently the creator's interests weigh infinitely higher than the interests of our fellow humans, etc
All very true.
.... If you take all these things to be facts, these facts bleed into your judgment of what's right and wrong.
That may very well be true too, but then saying "it's wrong to tell a lie" is rather different from saying "it's wrong for an observant Jew to eat pork." The first statement is undoubtedly ethical, whereas the second is more akin to stating the rules of a club to be followed by club members. And since the club's rules are only for club members, to say that those rules are ethical in nature means that subjective morality is correct (because it recognizes that some people are bound by moral rules that do not bind others). The other alternative is to say that those rules are not
ethical in nature, principally because they are not universal in scope.