Freedom of religion (“freedom of conscience” would be a better term, actually) does mean that if government is going to compel a citizen to act in a manner which violates that citizens religious or moral beliefs, that government had better have a very, very good reason for doing so.
Obviously, human sacrifice would not be protected under freedom of religion. As Will Rogers famously observed, one's right to swing one's fist ends where someone else's nose begins. No right extends to the point of using it to violate someone else's right.
Freedom of association (which isn't explicitly stated in the First Amendment, but is rather universally agreed to be implied by the freedoms of religion, speech, and assembly) means that government is (or should be) severely constrained against dictating to anyone with whom me may, or must associate, or for what reasons.
Discrimination is nothing more than making a choice not to associate with certain individuals. As such, I think government is unjustified in interfering with this legitimate exercise of freedom of association.
One has a right to associate or not with whom one will. One never has a right to have someone else be forced to associate with him against his will.
Freedom of association does not mean serving the public at large. Freedom of association means "associating." You can start or join a club that excludes Jews. You don't have to invite the black neighbor to your neighborhood party. But if you open a business under the laws of the United States that is to serve the public, you are not allowed, under the law, to define what "public" means. You cannot choose to exclude some of the public for discriminatory reasons. That is the law.
Hey, if you want to, you can make it a private club. That way, you can exclude people you object to. Old people, gay people, black people, Jewish people.
That is the law. What is so hard to understand about that? You are not "associating" with the public. You are serving them, in order to make a profit.
To understand the basis of the law, put yourself in, say, a Jewish person's place. Then imagine we are back in the 1950s, where businesses are allowed to discriminate.
You get in your car with your family to go on a trip. Oops....don't forget to take your multiple cans of gas, because you can't be sure that gas stations will sell you gas.
You have to pack enough food for your entire trip, since you can't be sure you'll be allowed to buy any.
You will have to bring pillows & blankets, since you can't be sure you'll be allowed to stay in a hotel at the location you stop at. You may have to sleep in the car.
You have to be prepared to use the bathroom on the road, including the kids....whatever arrangements you may want to make for that. You can't count on being allowed to use a public restroom.
This means, then, that you really can't go very far or for very long.
This would also affect what job you can have. Certainly not a job that involves much travel. Even if you get hired by a business in an office building, will you be allowed to eat in the restaurants in the building? Or use the restrooms? Does that depend on the building's owner? The restaurants' owners?
I'm sure you can see the problem with this, from the other person's point of view, and our country's point of view. As a member of the public, you have the right to use facilities and businesses and services that are, in fact, intended for the public. It affects the public's ability to move around freely, their work, their income, their dignity. No member of the public is more or less than another one. The public has rights, too. Your rights end where another's rights begin.
People still have the right to discriminate, if they want, by forming membership clubs or associations, or whatever they're called. They still have the right not to "associate" with those they don't want to. Serving the public is not "associating."