RE: or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . .
The typical liberal answer is always — What if a White business establishment refuses to service black people on religious grounds?
Private property—It’s mine to do with as I please. The concept of a “public accommodation” is a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Having said that, I’m not aware of any White, Christian-owned business denying service to anyone based on their race, at least in the last thirty or so years. If such happens, let the free market settle the question.
At the same time, I’ve read reports of Muslims in the US refusing service to people seen as violating tenets of the Muslim “faith.” Stories of Muslim cabbies refusing to transport individuals with service dogs and who are either carrying alcohol or have been drinking come to mind. My memory is that no liberals got too worked up over those incidents.
That would be deplorable and foolish but still constitutional. It would also be a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now that states have laws similar to the CRA but include homosexuals as a protected class it clearly displays the inherent conflict between the 1st amendment and all "Civil Rights" laws which dictate the behavior of private citizens.