That's not the point. it's as if that young black girl that couldn't sit with whites in a bus in Alabama in the 1950's was told to just take another bus, problem solved.

If she had and if subsequently all the people fighting for racial equality had too then racism would still be legal today in America. Things changed because she refused to go along and stood against this discrimination.

I think the problem here is not that this guy has the right to choose how to run his business and will reap the results.  The problem is that the Supreme Court set a precedence for future actions in the country.  So now, any business has the right to do the same with their services.  Suddenly, it becomes trendy to refuse services to a minority.  They still make money, even moreso because they were in the news and have the backing of those also against the minority.  Then those ideas start to strengthen as the majority cannot fully relate to the minority and superiority is a very addictive quality to humans.  If you cannot be a success in life, at least you can be better than this one group of people.

These are the seeds that can blossom into a widespread and common distaste for that particular minority which can eventually escalate to mass actions such as camps or forced migration.  Not long and we have a culture obsessed with a task that doesn't benefit anyone and anything but their own egos.

It shouldn't be up to companies and citizens to protect the rights of minorities and stand up for them.  It should be the job of the nation's leadership to protect every citizen.

I'm concerned with the legal precedent being set here.

You could literally have communities that don't serve specific sexualities or races.

You and insidb need to check your hyperbole 

There have been a couple of similar cases in the U.K., including another cake shop. Also a b&b that refused to allow a gay couple to stay.

I think the shop owner is wrong to deny service to the couple. However, if I owned a cake show I would refuse to make a cake with Nazi symbols - Har to say where the line is draw on protecting free speech and discrimating against people.
The B&B case is more clear cut for me.

So in Belgium, you can go to a Jewish owned bakery and demand a cake that says kill all Jews?

While I agree that he should do whatever he wants to with his business, I wouldn't call that victimization by the couple. Going through an experience like that is humiliating and disgusting. I wish people had an opportunity to experience something like that. It would probably change their perspectives on prejudice a bit.

You are exactly right 

I don't think you understand why the supreme court ruled in his favor. A gay couple wanted a customized wedding cake from a Christian baker for their wedding. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech. To me, that almost seems like they were wanting this to happen considering this wedding cake thing has become a trend as a way to troll or protest christians. They can't force him to make a cake for them.

They could have just went to a different baker if his refusal bothered them but years of fighting in courts over this was worth it to them. Personally, I would have written a bad review and went elsewhere.

There's already cases of that. A college wuth a no white people at school day. Women only movie showings.

They might be right. This guy is the second coming of Hitler. The jews are next .No more kosher cakes, then a few months later, Gas chamber's.