Missing the point. Freedom of speech is absolute as long as it is not a call to action or infringement on others rights. You can argue the specifics of that all you want to take away from the point that nothing Trump did was a crime.

When people refer to freedom of speech is absolute, of course there are regulations. There are regulations in the founding document that states libel. I pointed this out earlier. The term refers to, there is no such thing as hate speech, racist speech, "enlisting" speech. These are not crimes.

You are agreeing with me and obviously don't get it, freedom of speech being absolute refers to that we have a Constitution in place. Absolute being the first amendment, written in word and hasn't been doctored. We don't grant the right, we protect the right.

So, in the US, it takes a huge amount of effort to curve people from literally saying anything they want, any time they want. You have to show that the restriction of speech is because it infringes on other people's rights, or other more important rights. A great example is yelling fire in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire. This is restricted because it causes bodily harm. A similar restriction would exist if, by my merely saying a word, people died

I'm not agreeing with you, words have meanings whether you like them or not.

It's not illegal to say slurs. You just get fired and/or ridiculed. Neither of which violates your rights.

Anyway free speech has a degenerative effect on society. It comes down to whether you value your culture or value liberty. Accept it or become a Muslim.

Depends on where you work. Go to a Islamic bakery and try to get a gay wedding cake for you and your partner. Matter of opinion. Looking at the world through a telescope again I see.

Tell that to Nazi Germany who regulated Free Speech deemed on what they found appropriate. You're difference of opinion on killing jews could get you killed. Freedom of speech is what led every civil rights movement, ever.

The case you're referencing was a punt. SCOTUS did not decide it on discriminatory grounds, but on religious freedom. The state of Colorado displayed animosity so they lost. No precedent was created.

We're not disagreeing, you just have a malformed understanding of rights. They only protect you from government persecution, not social.

Do some more research, there is absolutely no precedent set that requires someone to serve someone in their place of business. There isn't just one case. There are thousands.