The conclusions are not indefensible. You may not like them, the bakers may not like them, but the only options are lobbying for an exception, to permit religious-based discrimination, or else cease selling custom wedding cakes in Oregon. It’s exactly the same as a real estate agent who is prohibited from red-lining blacks, or a construction company that doesn’t want to follow the building code.
Then defend them. Explain to us why the state of Oregon can in fact compel an artist, musician, or editorialist to make a statement with which they disagree, just because those people get paid to make statements.
The bakers' situations are not at all like a real estate agent red-lining blacks, because the bakers were willing to do business with the homosexual couples, nor is it like a construction company not following building code, because there is no allegation the bakers were in violation of health regulations in preparing food. Just because some regulation is reasonable and necessary does not mean all regulation is reasonable and necessary.
And you still haven't explained your own objections to the law. Do you in fact have any?