Glad you feel so strongly about bigotry, CL. Now the task is getting you to recognize it.
My view is that the fine is so excessive as to be punitive, and the facts of the case do not justify a punitive sanction. The debate on this thread alone proves that the legal positions of the baker and customer, as applied to these facts, is hardly clear. Those legal positions will eventually become clear, and when they do, it may be appropriate to punish a scofflaw. But this baker isn't, IMO, a scofflaw - I assume he thought his declination of service was lawful (and the issue is still in doubt, pending the resolution of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case).
So justice demands that he change his practices and pay the plaintiffs' counsel fees. Not that he also pay a monetary penalty in excess of $100,000 for his customer's "emotional distress". That's a shakedown, and wholly divorced from the morality of justice. IMO.