It really isn't crystal clear @Luis Gonzalez --- hence the "debate".
The baker did not deny a service he provides because the couple was gay. Had this same couple ordered a cake to celebrate a birthday, the cake would have been provided. What the baker did was decline to use his talent to create a cake to celebrate an occasion he cannot celebrate based on his religious beliefs.
Again .... the creation of that one cake, for that one occasion was denied --- any other cake for the same gay couple would have been provided.
Finding actual discrimination without trampling on the first amendment is the challenge before the Supreme Court.
There is no debate really. There's just a bunch of people not willing to accept the outcome of the orderly and Constitutional system of due process.
The law in Oregon is clear... there will be no sexual orientation-based discrimination in Oregon.
The process was clear and all involved were recipients of their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights to due process and equity under the laws.
The bakers were found guilty of breaking the law.
Whether we agree or disagree with a law is irrelevant and will not protect us from being subject to it.
We're either a nation of laws, or a chaotic, anarchist society where everyone is governed by their own ideas and emotions.
As an individual who identifies with right-of-center political ideology, I believe that we should be a nation of laws.