You made the claim O...you need to back it up.
I know the Constitution especially where the 1st Amendment is concerned.
There is no asterisk anywhere in it that says your entitled to free speech unless you profit from it.
If that were the case newspapers would have been sued out of existence a long time ago.
And if refusing to make a cake is discrimatory...why isn't "no shirt no shoes no service"?
Refusing to bake a cake is discriminatory because Oregon made it so and imposed penalties for violating the proscription. If Oregon makes it illegal to deny service for lack of shoes or a shirt, then that would be illegal. As of now, it’s not.
If you know the Constitution as well as you claim, then you understand the difference between strict scrutiny, which applies to state laws that infringe on noncommercial speech, and intermediate scrutiny, which applies to state laws that infringe on commercial speech, and under which the state only has to show that the infringing law addresses a substantial interest, and directly and materially advances that interest by means no more extensive than necessary. Discrimination against a significant portion of the community on an irrelevant basis is a substantial interest and prohibiting such discrimination by businesses is generally a direct means of advancing the goal of preventing that discrimination that is not an extensive overreach. The punitive damages penalty is, by contrast, excessive and if anything is most likely to be struck down.