Technically, it's a freedom of speech issue, which is often confusing because it's mixed in with religious rights.   By practicing medicine on a person, you're not endorsing anything about them.  The reason this came to be is that all doctors must treat every patient, no matter how legitimately vile.  It's not just people of different races, but also rapists, murderers, war criminals, whatever.

By decorating a cake to celebrate a marriage, you would be endorsing that viewpoint.  We understand this in normal situations because bakers routinely turn away business that they might disagree with like erotic cakes or those that contain some kind of slur without controversy.

So the situations are quite different.  You're arguing that the government should be in the business of deciding which types of speech are okay for a baker to choose not to endorse and which they absolutely must endorse.  I find that such a belief flies directly in the face of the 1st Amendment.

I give you three teasers:

1. King David said that you should hate the enemies of God with perfect hatred. David was a man of God's own heart.

Psalm 139:21-22. Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.

I find it interesting that you quote the imprecatory psalms, which are generally considered to be...something that needs justification in its contradictions. There are many interpretations of these Psalms and explanations for their reason for being but as far as I am aware, they typically aren't generally accepted to be taken literally. Either they are seen as something akin to catharsis, taken as a "moral repugnance" not a "personal vengeance" which is to say "hate the sin, love the sinner", or interpreted as the sole purview of a man close enough to God to judge.

To impart such broad license to "hate" through these Psalms is to largely miss the overall context of Psalms as a whole and the Bible as a whole, which does much more firmly and much more clearly establish that sinners should be approached with love, not hate.

I'm not so sure freedom of speech is the issue here, no one is telling the baker he cannot freely voice his opinions. But that's not what's happening here, in this case the baker is TAKING ACTION by refusing to serve a customer. That's action and not speech, the difference is important, speech is just words coming out of your mouth and your total freedom of choice of those words.

Also since when doing that cake means endorsing that viewpoint? The gay couple are CUSTOMERS, not friends, not companions, not brothers to the baker, just customers. The baker is asking for money in exchange of the service. Who is going to accuse the baker of becoming gay or loving gays just cause he's doing his job for which he will receive money?

As for the government, WHERE do you see me say I want the gov to decide which SPEECH is ok? I only want the gov to enforce anti-discrimination laws. Every-body believes and thinks whatever they want and free speech is GREAT, honestly it is. But that should not give you the right to discriminate a customer. There's a difference between disliking a group of individuals and taking action against them.

I think I'll stop here first cause I've voiced my opinion at length, second and this is kind of weird: WHERE are the other people that wants equality and are against discrimination? It seem I'm the only one in this thread defending the rights of the gay community? I would have thought there would be more people here to defend equality for all but it seems I'm oddly alone. Weird!

That is not a biblical principle, at least it is lacking the central component: repent of your sins and you will be forgiven.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/repentance-bible-verses/

The_Yoda said: 

Also you keep saying he refused to serve them.  He offered alternatives, he just refused them what they specifically wanted.  A fine line to be sure but not exactly the same thing. He was willing to serve them just on his terms.

Why don't you stop for a few and read up on the decision, freedom of speech or more specifically expression was at the heart of why the baker didn't lose.  Also you keep saying he refused to serve them.  He offered alternatives, he just refused them what they specifically wanted.  A fine line to be sure but not exactly the same thing. He was willing to serve them just on his terms.

Ok one last post I guess

So what you are saying is the baker tried to tell them what they had to buy? How is that any better? it's condescending and not respectful. the customers ALWAYS chooses what he/she wants. If I go to a store and I say I want a bottle of juice and the clerk says, nope I'm giving you a bottle of milk, I'm gonna be like What? Is this a joke?

In what universe would any customer pay for a product that is imposed. The baker had NO business telling the customer what he/she must buy, it's insane.

Can you imagine the same issue in the context of video games?

You: I want a PS4. The clerk: Ok, here is an Xbox. You: No I want a PS4. The clerk: Nope, you'll take an Xbox sir...

If you or anyone else don't see what's wrong here, nothing I will say will open your eyes.

Ok take care dude.