This means that while I am free to assemble with someone, I am also free to NOT assemble. Since that freedom includes the freedom to assemble for the purpose of business, it also includes the freedom to NOT assemble for business. As applied to this case, it would mean that it would require both parties desire to assemble for the purposes of business. If one party did not desire to engage in business, they would be free to withhold their goods and services as long as they did not charge the customer.
The court case that Hackney posted above about the Azucar Bakery affirms that point you just made and correctly ruled that it was not discriminatory for the bakery to refuse service.
However, our resident Leftist argues that when it comes to homosexual behavior, one can be compelled and be forced to 'assemble for business' and be forced to participate in serving a perverted behavior against their conscience and religion, but Homosexual business he thinks are exempt from providing service to those beliefs they find offensive, under the ridiculous assertion of 'discrimination'.
So it is okay to discriminate against Christian advocacy and celebration, but not okay to discriminate against homosexual advocacy and celebration.
He believes in government preference for castes and champions government use punishment to force compliance.
Hypocrisy of the highest order.