Mikey, almost as an aside, do you not see a conflict with what you disagree with, i.e. the bakers refusal, when you state (thruthfully, I might add) "You don't give freedom to some people, by taking it away from other people. The Law can't work that way, nor should we expect it to."?
Here in the U.S. one often sees, especially in small cafe's, a sign near the entrance saying "No shoes, No shirt, No service"... would the owner's be in the wrong by refusing service to someone dressed thus?
Our problem is religious freedom is expressed in the First Amendment to our Constitution which, ironically, is melded within the same Amendment to freedom of speech, press and expression (ibid) "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
So, similar situations here are two-edged swords, so to speak, since, there's no similar Amendment or other content in the Constitution (as, I understand it, England and the U.K. have no such document) guaranateeing life style choices, such as homosexuality...