There you're approaching the real gist of problem, which is a bit more complicated than some (Trout) are trying to represent it.  There are conflicting legal considerations (one state law, one Constitutional), and the court should decide which party is least harmed by having the other's position prevail.

If the baker is a devout Christian, a wedding, to him, is a sacred rite, not just a social event.  Asking him to significantly participate in what he would view as an active mockery of his religious convictions would be denying him his Constitutional freedom to practice his religion (which is not just which church he attends, but how he conducts his life).  That's something he cannot simply set aside by selecting some minor reasonable alternative.  

continued below...