Apologies for making assumptions.
But I really don't understand the logic behind wishing, for instance, that gay people would suffer discrimination rather than that one person who doesn't like gay people should have to set that aside and sell them a cake.
No one is compelled by the law to have a cake at their wedding celebration. It certainly is customary, but it is not a legal requirement. Nor does its lack imperil anyone's inherent rights. (I don't consider freedom form being insulted an inherent right.) Impaired access to wedding cakes is not in any way as serious a concern as impaired access to work, lodging, or freedom to travel which the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers.
Conversely, you seek to compel specific performance, in this case the provision of a custom-made wedding cake, from someone who does not wish to provide it to that person. Compelling specific performance is an example of a remedy in equity and said remedies are generally reserved for when remedies at law, such as the payment of monetary damages, are insufficient to resolve the situation. Yet the person deprived of the wedding cake has not suffered economic harm and as I said before, I don't see the courts as being the place where we should deal with people being insulted.
That said, I do find a difference between a case where the baker refuses to take the order and where the baker tries to cancel the order when ey discovers that it is for a non-traditional marriage. In the latter case, the baker is seeking an equitable remedy (rescission of a contract) and it can be fairly argued that eir laxity in finding out who is being wed before accepting the order is an example of laches that makes the desired remedy unavailable to the baker.
