@Oceander You try again. I stipulated the difference between a building code and this case. I answered your question. AND as was indicated all the way back on page 1 of this thread, your citing of “Oregon law†doesn’t amount to much either if the law (and all laws that violate the freedom of association) are unconstitutional. Now have the intellectual honesty to answer @goatprairie
What you posited is a distinction without a difference. Being denied goods or services by a public accommodation, such as a retail baker, on the basis of, inter alia, sexual orientation, damages the community and harms the individuals who are discriminated against. Oregonians, through their duly elected representatives, determined that this harm was sufficiently great that they would make it illegal and impose penalties on a public accommodation that engages in such discrimination.
It is precisely the same sort of determination that results in GCI circuits being required for outlets that are within a certain distance of a water source in many building codes.
Therefore, if the one - the building code - is acceptable, then Oregon's law making it illegal for a public accommodation to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation is perforce also acceptable under your rubric.
I know you don’t like it, but logic entails that as a necessary conclusion drawn from your position.
As far as the law being unconstitutional, it’s possible, but I doubt it. The law is facially neutral and the imposition only affects commercial relationships, not purely private conduct, and therefore some minor infringement on the delicate sensibilities of this baker is most likely constitutional.