I don’t follow your argument.
Are you saying the purposeful targeting is a violation of the First Amendment? How.
There are many florists and bakers in Washington and Oregon states who will gladly provide services to homosexuals. If one or two of either services won’t provide satisfaction, there are many who will do so. There are more bakeries than just one, in Eugene, Oregon, for example.
The florist in the article, the baker I mentioned from Eugene, were no doubt known for their religious beliefs. I believe they were targeted in violation of their Constitutional rights. The Progressive laws citing non-discrimination, both in Oregon and Washington, violate First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States IMO, and I believe those two states can have their laws negated in the USSC.