Let's look at this another way. It's a long-standing right of businesses to refuse service to people, though this is quite generally applied to individuals who have behaved unacceptably.

Here in the UK, it is perfectly legal for a private landlord to advertise a flat or house with a proviso such as "working people only" or "no DWP" and this is not considered discriminatory. On the other hand, they cannot stipulate "no Blacks" or "no gays".

General stores, or 'newsagents and tobacconists' near large secondary schools can and do often stipulate that pupils at the school will not be served and this is also not considered discriminatory.

Basically, anti-discrimination laws are intended to ensure minority groups have full and proper access to education, employment, housing and the general necessities of life.

However, I take leave to doubt that a wedding cake is classed as a necessity! Nor. for that matter, is a restaurant meal!

In both cases mentioned, the refusal of service was on an individual transaction. In the cake case, the baker felt that to undertake this specific commission would violate a deeply-held personal belief. In the restaurant case, the onwers clearly felt that, having been at pains to create a 'safe space' for their staff and presumably many of their patrons, they were unable to violate that trust by entertaining people deeply opposed to their way of living.

In both cases, the reasons for rejection were perfectly valid, and are rare instances (these days) of people refusing profit opportunities out of personal conviction.

I would not go into a vegan restsaurant and demand rare steak. I would not go to a halal butcher and request a pork pie. If I went into a small local pub frequented by pensioners in a working class area, or into one in a very upscale middle class area, and was refused service because of my ponytail and beard, I would be more amused than annoyed. My kids, as young adults, were frequently refused service in pubs or admittance into nightclubs because they were Goths. They weren't annoyed about this, on the grounds that such places would be full of Townies and Chavs, so they wouldn't have much fun there.

The point being that the proper response from the customers in both cases should have been "OK, I understand, I'll go somewhere else." Kicking up a fuss and going to court is unnecessary and expensive and only hardens attitudes on both sides. Especially when alternatives are readily available!