I'm starting to wonder if you actually understand what freedom of religion means. Up to what point do you think you should be permitted to exercise a religious belief? Do you think you need to take into account the rights of others?
Of course. You're entering into caricature here. Do you think there's any right that doesn't trump religious liberty, though? I think religious liberty is one of our most important rights, and can only be restricted for damn good reason. You seem to think it can get tossed any time it comes into conflict with a law. That's the same as not having religious freedom.
Do you not need a Catholic church and a priest handy for that particular service?
Now you're just being intentionally stupid. Should a Baptist be forced to, say, provide the wine for that Mass? Or cater it? Or take pictures of child as it undergoes what he believes to be an abhorrent practice? It's like you forgot everything in this conversation.
You were beginning a line of argument by which you could suggest literally anything was violating your religious rights.
Well, it's true that almost anything could violate someone's religious beliefs. There are a lot of belief systems out there! The point is that most of the time they should be allowed to practice those beliefs. If you think something so trivial as needing to buy a cake elsewhere overrides religious conscience rights, then you don't believe in religious freedom. It needs to be something substantial to override those beliefs.
Are you going to deny me food because I use it to sustain my sinful lifestyle?
Again, you're being intentionally stupid. No one's talking about denying something to someone because you disagree with other parts of their lifestyle. We're talking about declining to actively affirm or participate in those actions that you believe to be sinful. Serving a person a normal meal is substantially different from serving, say, a Passover Seder, or a Eucharist, or a Santerian sacrifice. If you can't see that difference, then you need a lot more education.