This is a topic I struggle with! Judging what is right and wrong in circumstances such as this.
Granted the part being acted out may seem repulsive to some or even most, myself included, but does freedom of speech mean anything? Or does it only apply when the subject/topic/speech is agreeable. It's not freedom of speech, only for those you agree with, it's freedom of speech for all. And as bigoted as he sounded, did he actually harm anyone? Or do we now lean on all the 1st ammendment erroding laws that have been enacted; hate speech, free-speech zoning, etc? Which increasingly are or will infringe on everyone's speech at one time or another. And which, may land some in jail!
As much as emotion tells me to like what the soldier had to say, I'm not sure I can agree with his "shut up, get out" response. What makes him right? What gives him the authority to try to tell someone to "shut up and get out". He says he's fighting for the one guys right to religious belief, but does he not realize a person's freedom of speech? Again, what is free speech, and is there a line to be drawn. If so, who draws it. And here we are right back at the point of enacting 1st ammendment erroding laws.
The only way I could see it following a true constitutional, freedom and liberty framed situation, is that the owner of the property would have the right to ask the guy to leave. But as we know, owners of properties have had laws enacted against them as well which removes their ability to serve, entertain, rent to, etc. someone they agree/disagree with.
The soldier is an example of one aspect of "American" programming. Programed to think he is "liberty's representative" is just another example of a knee jerk, feel good, or "I'm the man" attitude, which is displayed by America in many instances, one of which is pushing our thinking or way of life on others by force. Granted, he only used words in this scenario, but where would it have ended? America always resorts to force.
Again, I admit to struggling with this from a true freedom, liberty, constitutional perspective. What is right in these types of circumstances? Think West Borough Baptist church. They disgust me, but where's the line. Chik-fil-A, shouldn't they have a right to believe what they want, and serve who they choose? They'd probably go out of business, but hey, that's the true free market, without laws saying who they must serve? Or the pastor in Florida, Terry Jones, recently arrested for "going" to burn some Korans? Why?
Or, is freedom a bad thing? ;) Thoughts?