Here is the statement of facts from the Oregon Supreme Court's opinion (I added the emphasis):
Here's a link to the opinion itself: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A159899.pdf
So, in sum:
(i) the bakery advertised to the general public that it made wedding cakes, and
(ii) the complainants were already familiar with the bakery because they were familiar with the cakes that it baked, since the mother of one had purchased a cake from the bakery before for the mother's own wedding.
Them's the facts, jack.
"(i) the bakery advertised to the general public that it made wedding cakes, and
(ii) the complainants were already familiar with the bakery because they were familiar with the cakes that it baked, since the mother of one had purchased a cake from the bakery before for the mother's own wedding"
A manufacturer/business advertises to the general public that it makes certain types of widgets.
A customer goes to the business and asks the manufacturer to make a different kind of widget. The business says it only makes a particular type of widget, and the customer is free to buy any of those.
The customer demands that the manufacturer make them a special kind of widget whether the business wants to make it or not.
The business says it reserves the constitutional right to make whatever types of widgets it wants to make. Like every business has done since the founding of the country and before.
The customer sues and uses the force of the gov. i.e men with guns to force the business to make them a specially designed widget.
Them's the facts Jack.