This is not how this works, religious freedom edition

Sometimes it is interesting what raises one's hackles. Today one could get upset about domestic terrorism in the USA or the level of discourse regarding dual citizenships in Australian politics, but what really annoyed me was an opinion piece on the ABC website with the title "same-sex marriage is more complex than the Yes campaign admits".

Basically, the author, one Peter Kurti identified as "a research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies and the author of The Tyranny of Tolerance: Threats to Religious Liberty in Australia", argues that any changes to laws that will allow same-sex marriage will have to ensure that those who don't like that change can still discriminate against homosexuals:

Freedom of religion extends far beyond the walls of a church or a synagogue.

Schools, charities, and other faith-based not-for-profits, as well as ordinary business people such as bakers, florists, and photographers who wish to uphold the traditional meaning of marriage need to be protected from discrimination and attack if the law on marriage does change. [...]
   
If the law is eventually changed to allow same-sex couples to marry, it should not create an additional entitlement enabling some citizens to force other citizens to act against their religious beliefs or conscience by making them help celebrate same-sex marriages.

The usual disclaimer applies here as to how what I write is my private, non-professional opinion and not necessarily that of any other person or institution that I may be associated with, but I believe I am not stating anything particularly controversial or revolutionary when I now write:
This is not how freedom of religion works.

Let's consider how this would have to work in other cases, if it wasn't complete nonsense.

• If the law is eventually changed to allow mixed-race couples to marry, it should not create an additional entitlement enabling some citizens to force other citizens to act against their religious beliefs or conscience by making them help celebrate mixed-race marriages.
  
• If the law is eventually changed to allow women to seek employment, it should not create an additional entitlement enabling some citizens to force other citizens to act against their religious beliefs or conscience by making them hire women.
  
• If the law is eventually changed to allow people to wear yellow shirts, it should not create an additional entitlement enabling some citizens to force other citizens to act against their religious beliefs or conscience by making them provide services to customers wearing yellow shirts.

The logic, and I am using this word loosely because any more appropriate alternative would be impolite, is exactly the same in all four cases. There is not one iota difference between them.

Freedom of religion, unless it is intended to destroy all personal freedom and tolerance, cannot mean that people get to discriminate against whatever they personally don't like. It means that they are allowed to follow their religious rules, for example by not marrying somebody of the same sex themselves, but it cannot mean that they are allowed to discriminate against others who do not follow those rules.

What really frustrates me is that this is not some random dude who has never looked into how rights and freedoms work and made some thoughtless off the cuff remark during lunch break. This is somebody who has carefully written an opinion piece and got it published by Australia's public broadcasting company on the strength of their authority as a scholar. I assume it would be silly to ask if the piece underwent peer review.