> The baker was ruled in favor due to objecting based on his religious beliefs.

No, he was ruled in favor of because the US Supreme Court found anti-religious animus in the enforcement process leading to the State ruling against him.

> Part of this was that he was okay with baking a cake for the gay couple but NOT one that had certain messaging that would violate his faith.

No, it wasn't. The decision specifically notes that he objected to being required to make cakes for same sex weddings entirely, on both free speech and free exercise of religion grounds [0], not that he was willing to do so dependent on messaging, so any such willingness he might have had was not a basis of the decision.

Instead, the Court found animus toward Phillips’ religious views by the state commission that found against him, both expressed in the process and evidenced through difference in how Phillips was treated vs. other bakers in similar cases before the same Commission, which mean that whether or not the law could otherwise have been enforced against him, the specific government act had an impermissible purpose, requiring it to be struck down. [1]

Note: All quotes from Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018)

[0] “Phillips raised two constitutional claims before the ALJ. He first asserted that applying CADA in a way that would require him to create a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate his First Amendment right to free speech by compelling him to exercise his artistic talents to express a message with which he disagreed. [...] Phillips also contended that requiring him to create cakes for same-sex weddings would violate his right to the free exercise of religion, also protected by the First Amendment.”

[1] “The official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments—comments that were not disavowed at the Commission or by the State at any point in the proceedings that led to affirmance of the order—were inconsistent with what the Free Exercise Clause requires. The Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’ case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same. For these reasons, the order must be set aside.”

Not to mention they are intentionally sending more LGBTQ customers his way to have him politely say no and refer them to another business, just so they can sue him again, and again, and again...

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/masterpiece-cakeshop...

Absolutely nothing wrong with that

That's how you enforce civil rights laws

It's no different then trying to rent an apartment from a racist to make a case

>they are intentionally sending

Who are they and why do you think they send people?

Indeed he offered the couple any other cake than a custom wedding cake with two men figures on top.

His custom cakes are small works of art. If he'd be forced to create one against his beliefs, why not force a far left painter to paint a favorable portrait of Trump?

And indeed this situation has little to do with Silicon Valley corporations offering generic services to millions of people. They are like supermarkets, who should not be allowed to refuse service to anyone.

I think that’s the issue people mix up. He isn’t refusing to do business with anyone because of who they are. He’s refusing to create certain expressions which I should think he has every right to do.

I would expect a Christian cake maker would not agree to accept my money to design a cake that worships satan for example. Likewise I wouldn’t expect a satanic cake maker to make a cake celebrating Jesus.

Would it be right to force an Islamic cake maker to make a cake featuring Muhammad’s likeness?

No he is refusing to make a cake for a gay couple

If he refused to provide groom&groom wedding toppers I'd fully support him but this is food not speech

Likewise I wouldn't expect him to write messages or make decorations he disagreed with

But in this case it's a simple case of discrimination

Literally in the article it says he offered to make them other items... https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics/masterpiece-colorado...

And literally the Supreme Court decisions stated that he objected to making cakes for gay couples on two separate grounds. To the extent that he may have offered them to make other items, it wasn't part of the basis for the decision, which was entirely about religious animus shown by the Colorado State commission that enforced the law in his case, and not at all about him not actually discriminating because he was willing to do business with gay couples, just not to make the specific cake they wanted.

The fact that something is mentioned in a news article about a court case doesn't mean that (even if it is true) it is part of the basis for the decision. If you want to understand the basis for a court decision, it's best to read the decision itself.

His cakes are food

This seems like a giant loophole to negate anti-discrimination laws.

Are subway "sandwich artists" able to discriminate in their art?

AWS isn't like a supermarket. Depending on the context it's better analogised to something like a car rental chain or a large shopping centre. They're providing ongoing, rented, commodity infrastructure that is subject to acceptable use policies.

This is inaccurate

The baker discriminated against the couple but the supreme court punted on ruling on the laws and just said the goverment hadn't acted correctly in that case so threw it out. The law is still on record and baker has to abide by it and stop discriminating against gay couples unless the court someday rules otherwise