These statutes you reference are not 'rules of public accommodation'. Instead they define what public accommodations are. The 'rules' are not within your link.
What interestingly within your link is that there is not any difference from the perspective of a commercial vs non-commercial enterprise in the public arena, making your own point in this http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,296957.msg1560110.html#msg1560110
invalid.
Bull.
You just don’t want to accept the reality that is there before your very nose.
Oregon law defines a public accommodation in a way that includes this bakery. It then forbids discrimination on the basis of, amongst other things, sexual orientation by the proprietor of a public accommodation. Very simple.
The bakery cannot under Oregon law discriminate against someone on the basis of sexual orientation, which is what they did when they refused to bake a cake, any cake at all, for a lesbian wedding.
The question is whether the law amounts to an unconstitutional infringement of the bakers’ right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion, and under intermediate scrutiny, it does not, according to the Oregon court, in a well written opinion that does acknowledge the closeness of the issue.
Issues of compelled speech in similar circumstances have been mitigated before, and have generally been upheld. So the bakers face an uphill battle.