To say that there was no similarity between the two you would have to provide evidence that the restaurant would have refused to serve Sanders had she not been a member of the Trump administration.
The baker can justify his position any way he wants. The fact is that had the couple in question not been homosexual then he would have baked the cake for them. He denied them service based on who they were as much as what they wanted. The restaurant did the same.
I understand your argument to be that the restaurant denied service not because of who Sarah Sanders is, but because of something she chooses to do. That's a good distinction and a very fair point.
However the baker took a far less assertive position with the homosexual couple; he never asked them to leave and offered to sell them anything else he had available. He simply would not support one particular thing they chose to do, which was to hold a wedding ceremony. Short of supporting that one particular thing they chose to do he was happy to engage in business with them. That's very different from the position taken by the restaurant owner.
Had the restaurant owner refused to cater a pro-Trump banquet but agreed to serve Sarah Sanders a routine meal, or had the baker refused to do any business with the homosexual couple and asked them to leave, the cases would be the same. However neither of those things happened.
From prior experience debating this with others I can see that you and I are not going to get any closer on how we view the issue of the baker. I appreciate your sincerity
@RedHead and look forward to agreeing with you on other threads.