In the Jim Crow South, merchants were totally free to discriminate when deciding who they'd serve. Great model to strive for, eh?
If my ex and I (both female) had stayed married, we'd have celebrated 25 years a couple of weeks ago. Our wedding was neither legally recognized nor sanctioned by any religious denomination. My father, an RLDS elder (he still is), performed it. Rather than brave the marketplace, we paid friends to provide the things we needed--my ex's college roommate took the pictures; her boyfriend ran the video camera; my hairdresser's aunt did the catering; another friend of my ex's did the flowers and the cake. We did this because in 1993 there was definitely no guarantee we would be served by commercial enterprises and neither of us were "out" at work at the time so we didn't want to make a fuss that might get us on the six o'clock news.
If you own a business that provides wedding cakes, then you provide wedding cakes. That's your job. Your job isn't to decide who deserves to be able to marry. It's my understanding this baker is no longer providing wedding cakes to any customers because of Colorado's law. This ruling wasn't a slam-dunk for the homophobes; the baker was treated badly by a government commission (although I'd call it a draw; I don't care how "politely" you try to put it, denying somebody service because you think they're icky is plain old hostile) and that government commission deserved to be put on notice not to do that again. It's also my understanding that this incident occurred before the Colorado law was enacted, so that if it happens again with another couple and baker, there won't be any wiggle room to say the law doesn't require you to serve everybody and nobody can make you, nyah nyah nyah.
You're damned right it's not over yet. It shouldn't be. I don't ever plan to marry again; I like being on my own and I'm too set in my ways. But if I did, this time I'd do it the way I want.
So the Supreme Court's decision was not about the baker's right to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple but was about the way the civil-rights commission (a government entity) handled the complaint. The law under which he was charged was not struck down.
This is the equivalent of a criminal case being thrown out because the police broke into the house without a warrant--the decision was based on errors by government entities in investigating and prosecuting the case.
It was the Supreme court protecting the citizens from government overreach, but the supreme court did not say the baker had the right to do what he did.