Of course, before free exercise was addressed the founders first prevented congress from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.Your argument is based on liberal judicial ignorance, in a Country that was FOUNDED on RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. But we shall see how this case will resolve.
Were you a little smarter, you would understand that the baker's religious freedom was never infringed, in fact it wasn't even threatened.
This suit has been settled the court ruled upon it, their ruling is sound, and it will withstand appeal. The only question is how stupid the baker is, and how much money they wish to throw away on appeals, which they have no hope of winning.
The baker's religious freedom is in no way infringed by providing a service to someone with different beliefs. Denying someone a service because they do not hold the same religious moral beliefs is, in essence, denying that person their free exercise and free speech.