They are “Right to refuse service cases” only in a rudimentary sense and hence would likely be decided differently because they ARE NOT analogous.
In the Colorado case the Supreme Court found that while the baker did need to serve gay couples, they were not obligated to express pro-gay messages.
This situation however is strictly a refusal of service that would be routinely provided to anyone that did not profess religious beliefs differing from the provider.
If the restaurant would have been tasked with providing a desert that espoused a pro-life position and they refused, the circumstance would be equivalent.
https://huckleberry.com/blog/right-to-refuse-service/
Note the difference between deciding in court and rubbing the noses of the left in their unwillingness to condemn the restaurant’s actions.