While I am surely against discrimination, there is a place for law, and a place to let the market handle itself. We already have laws to address discrimination, so the law being discussed is something else. For example if you refuse to sell a tire from your shelf to "one of those" you will be sued, and rightfully so. Similarly, if you refuse to hire "one of those" or fire a person because they are "one of those" you will be sued, and again rightfully so. These are good laws, and should remain on the books. (Pardon the generalization, "one of those" was shorter than the long list of potential discrimination targets, no offense was intended.)
Considering that we already have laws, and the new law is not overruling those, we should ask what the new law was supposed to cover (go ahead and read the short history on this, I have). It is to cover a service industry having the right to refuse specific customized services and was exactly the result of a gay couple suing a bakery that refused to customize a cake they way the couple wanted. Note that this is not some off the shelf item that the baker refused to sell, it was not a job applicant that was refused, it was a specific modification that someone wanted that was refused.
If you answer no to the question in my subject, then why do you care about a law forcing a service to make you something the way you want it? Is this not a place for normal marketing pressure to make the correction if and where necessary? If a bakery refuses to make something you want, don't shop at that bakery? A different bakery willing to do your custom work will be happy to make the money. Good service distinguished from bad is exactly the thing that makes successes and failures in the "Services industry". If there are no other bakeries worth a damn in your area, start your own and cash in! That is what the "American Spirit" is all about.
I think the law as written was vague enough to be poor. Better written, it would have still resulted in some protest but not nearly as justified.
I see this in line with the huge amount funding and campaigns that went into making all bars and restaurants "no smoking". No law ever forced any of those businesses to support smokers, and a savvy entrepreneur could have made a mint on "no smoking" clubs and restaurants. Not that smoking is good (though it's legal), but the legislation forcing a service to behave a certain way breaks normal competition. The market can't dictate success, the Government does. It is too easy for this type of law to end up on a slippery slope.
Whether or not you believe it was "stupid" there are additional costs associated with customizing services, some are potentially long term. If the bakery was in a highly religious area and accepted the job of customizing the cake how much business would they lose? If they are in an area with a high population of LGBT, how much would they gain? Those are factors a service business needs to weigh. Even if in someone's opinion it's stupid not to do the extra, how many people in the world have a religion? I'll give you a hint, the majority does. Again, this is not refusing to sell an off the shelf product which resulted in a successful lawsuit. It was the refusal to customize a product that resulted in the successful lawsuit.
To make some comparative analogies: Should the Jewish or Muslim person be able sue the butcher for having pork on it's shelf, or should the market dictate that a butcher shop in a predominantly Jewish or Muslim area not carry pork? How about the atheist that lives in the same neighborhood, can they sue? Can the gay male sue the topless bar for not having male performers? Can the lesbian woman sue Chip&Dales for not having female performers? This is the precedent that was set with the successful bakery suit, unfortunately. We can't put that Jeanie back in the bottle, so I believe additional legislation is surely needed.
As I indirectly stated numerous times, the "Services Industry" is not the same as other businesses. The commodity is the personalization, not just fixed object cost. Society generates the normals with financial support for good choices, and gets rid of bad the same way.