I don't know what is right or wrong in this case, I just believe that American stands for multiple values -- freedom being only one of them. The beauty of America's system is that it continuously works to find some homeostasis or balance (or at least some respect) when we have 2 important values (in this case, freedom v. non-discrimination) that seem to have some coexistance challenges.
In terms of one of the examples given in this thread, perhaps it is true that a Muslim who practices strict food rules should not be required to provide pig offerings in his/her catering menu. I suppose pigs or devout pig-eaters might complain -- but my guess is that the only legitimate complaint would occur if that Muslim business decided to only cater affairs to certain religions, specific gender, or specific sexual orientation. If they don't serve pig to anyone, that is their right; if they pick and choose who they will consent to serve based on race, religion, etc. perhaps that is discrimination.
Isn't there ALWAYS a flip-side to freedom that occurs when the exercise of your freedom inhibits (in some way) the freedom of others? Additionally, isn't there something to be said for how our legal decisions and ineterpretations should reflect the values that are at the core of our constitution (isn't that why we call it a "constitution")?
I get that we should never deny freedom lightly. But we should also not condone discrimination lightly. I don't like denying the baker his freedom to exercise his religious beliefs. I also don't like saying to the baker that you don't have to bake for gay people. In my opinion, not an easy decision -- 2 big values in conflict. My only hope is that no one takes these decisions lightly and considers both sides carefully and respectfully.