While I haven't read the actual opinion, it appears that the ruling merely denies the injunction sought by the State that would have compelled the baker to stop selling wedding cakes altogether if she weren't willing to comply with the law. That's what I understand Jack Phillips did, on his own and not under the compulsion of a court order.
An injunction would have raised the specter of the State forcing a businessman to stop selling a product while the legal merits of the matter have yet to be decided. What if the court ultimately ruled in the baker's favor - would the state have compensated the baker for all her lost business?
This must be a great country without many real problems if this is the silly hill we all decide to die on. Let's face it - the baker's an arsehole for not baking the cake she said she would, and the customer's an arsehole for not just going to the competitor the baker recommended to her. For each, it's the "principle of the thing". Fine, let 'em fight and make lots of lawyers rich. As I've said before, true justice would be a ruling in favor of the customer coupled with an award of damages in the amount of one dollar.
But here, the State seeks an injunction that would compel the baker to give up valuable business. I can't disagree with a court ruling that fends off that government bludgeon pending the resolution of the merits.