Well, yes, he did, in a way - at least re. gay people. Gay people can only patronize his bakery under conditions that differ for straight people. They can't purchase baked goods that they plan to use for something of which he disapproves, unlike, presumably, straight people, who can use said baked goods in any way they please. 

If the baker views selling a wedding cake to gay couples are a form of participation in their ceremonies, then he seems to be arguing that his rights in the cake persist even after at it has passed out of his possession. That seems loony.