I may be missing a few of the dfiner points here, but it seems that there is a misconception that the bakery is refusing to serve gays in the absolute sense of the word "refusing". That seems to be not factually correct.
The bakery says we will not take that commercial order for goods and services because we feel it would indicate in some way that we suppport the activity. The bakery did not say gays will not be served should they attempt to purchase displayed products.
Gays are not yet a legally protected class in regards to discrimination issues, as are the classess of race, gender (but not gender identification), national origin, handicapping condition, etc. That being the case, the City Fathers and their administrative minions can have their thongs all wadded up as much as they care to but I fail to see how, legally, they can use this as an excuse to terminate the month-to-month lease status. (Which, BTW, is not eviction and claiming it as such is just sensationalism.)
Could we discuss things from this point of view, as opposed to the "moral" position I see being bandied back and forth above?
stay safe.