Then explain how forcing a baker to provide a service he doesn't supply just because the customer is gay is legal.
You keep repeating that, yet his website (and even the name of his business) seem to disagree with you.
Whether or not he makes wedding cakes now, there's no question that he did back in 2012, when this lawsuit actually happened.
Unless you have some sort of evidence that he is currently discriminating you really can't argue that the ruling is appropriate, especially the part about keeping lack of innocent third parties simply to satisfy a commission that has no legal authority to impose any types of sanctions.
The ruling isn't about what is happening "currently", it's because of what already happened, a year ago.
What do you mean by "keeping lack of innocent third parties..."? I'm having a hard time parsing the sentence.