Actually, I agree with most of this, until you get all stupid at the end. This issue is indeed serving all customers from the exact same menu. The business owner determines the menu - hamburgers by the lunch counter, wedding cakes by the baker. A black customer has the right to be served a hamburger, but not to demand grits that aren't on the menu. By the same logic, any customer - gay or straight - has the right to be provided with a wedding cake if that is what the baker advertises he's in business to provide.
Assuming your argument is correct, (which I disagree that it is) this is a case of the tail waging the dog. You would put the lesser principle of "equality" ahead of the greater principle known as "freedom."
Why should we accept government coercion in commerce or social affairs as opposed to letting individuals exercise their freedom to do as they wish, so long as they are not assaulting someone?
If we allow this encroachment into how they conduct their business, how much longer will it be before we prohibit them from expressing certain opinions which do not meet with the approval of our government?
In fact, their refusal to bake a "gay" wedding cake is an expression of their opinion on the matter. It is a form of speech, just as was Rosa' Park's refusal to stand an expression of her opinion.
