The important points are: "The bakers said their refusal was prompted by religious beliefs. They are appealing the state’s order." and "The case has been cited in the national debate over religious freedom and discrimination against gays."
From Merriam Webster "religion" is defined as: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." and "a particular system of faith and worship."
We note that "worship" is found in both definitions. The courts understand that religious freedom, discrimination and morality are three separate concepts and the former two are legal issues, the later one is not.
Religious freedom is the freedom to worship and worship is typically associated with a building. This right to worship becomes limited once one leaves a religious building and one is no longer participating in the religious service. The reason for these implicit restrictions on religion is that "religious freedom" is not an absolute, anymore than "free speech" allows one to yell "Fire" in a crowed theater when there is no fire. In our age, we have confused religion and morality and combined them into a nebulous creation that partakes of both and is neither.
If certain individuals find people or their behavior repugnant, then so be it. However, one's view of morality can not be combined with religious freedom and morphed into a reason to commit illegal acts without consequences.
Gentle Reader, It is unfortunate that certain people either do not have access to a dictionary or know how to utilize it. No matter, for the Courts will apply both reason and legal precedents to reach the same verdict as yours truly.
And I predict that day will not be a slow news day.