If you are going to go out of your way to defend discrimination and bigoted practices, at some point in time, people will call you out on it.
I defend the right to discriminate, and the right to follow bigoted practices (as long as these practices do not harm other people). This is very different from defending discrimination and such practices themself.
Just to illustrate with an example: I would also defend the right of string theorists to develop and defend string theory (in their free time). Does it follow that I defend string theory?
The usual go to for bigots is to claim they have or might have friends who are gay, black, Jewish, Muslim, South American, Asian, a woman and every other group that is discriminated against.
And the usual way to attack them as "bigots" includes claims that they hate the people of the group in question. For many of those which are unjustly attacked that way this is, first of all, a big surprise - simply because they do not hate these people at all. And having members of these groups as friends is the immediate obvious counterevidence. That's why it is natural that such a defense is often used.
All this of course while complaining of what they perceive is mistreatment at the hands of the evil Government or other organisation that may be forcing you to behave in a civil manner towards people you hate.
You completely ignore here some extremely important points.
Freedom is always about the freedom of those who don't behave like you want. Every dictator gives you the freedom to behave like he wants.
Then, every restriction of freedom will be somehow justified in the propaganda. The most obvious method to justify the restriction of freedom is, of course, that someone possibly may behave inappropriately if he is not forced to do everything in the right way. Those who have recognized this general scheme of freedom restriction, of course, do not take this propaganda seriously.
The most dangerous thing connected with restrictions of freedom is their misuse by those in power. The restrictions of freedom will never be only applied to those who really behave inappropriately. But, of course, against all those who do not behave like those in power want.
Then, even if one ignores all the misuses, there are important side effects of state persecutions, and most of them are not about the question "forbidden or not" but about inappropriate penalties. America is famous for extraordinary harsh penalties for minor violations - and the clear world leader in the number of prisoners (per population as well as absolute, despite the much greater number of people in China).
For example, your complaint about possibly being forced to serve "
the gay" and your complaints about being forced to do a job that you hate, which you viewed as making you a slave. No one is forcing you to work for such institutions. You are free to leave and you are paid a wage. In short, you are not a slave.
If my business is, with my own firm, to provide services - for money - to people I like, I do no harm. If I refuse to provide the service to some people I don't like, this will be forbidden, my whole existence is in danger. This danger is, clearly, too big. So, I will accept the partial slavery and serve also the people I hate. (Just to clarify - this is not about me, I'm an independent scientist who does not depend on receiving a wage.)
Fortunately, services which are forced, will have low quality. In fact, no reasonable person would accept a service from people who would prefer not to serve him, and even less force them to provide such services. So, the question is who are those people who want to enforce such unwanted services? The obvious suspection is that these are people who, for whatever reason, like to force other people to do things they don't like. So, this law does not protect reasonable people - who will volitionally leave places where they are not welcome, even if they have the right to stay there - but unreasonable people who like to harass and bully others.
Laws are enacted to protect people and their rights for the common interest of all.
No. They would be - in an ideal state, which never existed on Earth and cannot exist even in principle, simply because the power connected with the state is especially attractive for the worst of the people.
Certainly, you might not like being forced to serve "the gay", and certainly, they might be free to simply go elsewhere for the product you refuse to sell them because they are gay, but where will it end? Should doctors, police, hospitals, ambulances, fire departments all have the same right to discriminate if they so choose?
Very simple. Every private institution should have this right. Any institution which exists on taxpayers money - taken from all people - should serve all people.
If you are an unwanted person in a small village, it is anyway a good idea to leave.
You are not free to impose those views on others and in doing so, affect the lives of others by denying goods and services based on your personal issues and bigotry.
If I'm offering on my property something for people I like, I do not impose anything on people I don't like. I do not, in particular, deny them anything they have a right to receive, because nobody has such a right - it is my volitional decision to make offers to people I like.