Your statement is quite ignorant. There is a massive difference between business-specific dress codes (both of your examples), and discrimination based on the way a person was born.

Inadequate clothing is not a protected class under the Civil Rights Act. Hence there are major legal differences between refusing to serve a person because they are black, and refusing to serve a person because they are shirtless.

Sexual orientation is also not a protected class under the Civil Rights Act. Hence the topic.

So if a person stops being gay while they’re in the bakery, do they get a cake?

Everything you just described as criteria for refusal was by personal choice.

Religion is a personal choice, and protected. Sexual orientation is not protected by law.

They could have gotten a cake if they had been willing to get one that didn't specifically express the homosexual nature of the wedding. The baker had no problem selling them a generic cake, the issue was that he didn't want to make a cake that expressed a message he disagreed with.

No they can't. Exposing your ass and being shirtless aren't protected classes. You can't refuse service because someone is black, because it is a protected class.

Pants falling down your ass isn't a protected class, so that's not really a fair argument.

Those rules are based on behavior within the establishment, rather than who you are.

How I wear my clothes, is a part of who I am correct? What if baggy pants is part of my religion?

If baggy pants is part of your religion, I'd imagine that means you're free to argue it in court.

So a sign that says "No black people here" is totally fine?