The baker is NOT "an arsehole" because she never agreed to bake a WEDDING cake in the first place.
But she's in business to sell wedding cakes. It's what she advertises to the public. And she's supposed to abide by the community's laws against arbitrary discrimination. Her religious freedom doesn't enter into it. She wants special rights to discriminate. So yeah, she's an arsehole. But so is her customer, because the baker recommended a competitor she could have easily gone to.
Each is willing to "die" on the hill of the principle she's obsessed with. Freedom of religion? Yes, it's an important right, but no more important than the principle the lesbian customer (and the State of California) has lawyered up for. Two irreconcilable "principles", two unrepentant arseholes, and it's now going to be up to be a judge, like Solomon, to decide.
I support the judge's interim ruling because I view the State of California as the bully. I think the lesbian couple has the better argument on the merits, even though the harm they experienced is rather trivial. Meanwhile the State of California wants to damage the baker's business before the merits have been addressed. That's the action of a bully, so I agree with the judge's ruling. If the courts ultimately rule that the baker must serve her customers without discrimination, then let the impact on her business be prospective. That seems fair.