Can you link any news accounts, Net info etc. of anyone suing a food serving establishment because they do not serve a certain type of food?

 You state this happens but I can not find any information that it actually does.

 The cake thing is different, they did not sue because a cake store doesn't sell pork, or ice-cream cake which is what you are saying happens.   They sued due to denial of service discriminating against the customer, not the food type.  They refused to make a cake - at a cake store, which is a direct conflict of your sandwich shop example.
 

 Can you link any news accounts, Net info etc. of anyone suing a food serving establishment because they do not serve a certain type of food?

 You are saying this happens, I would like references.

 Your sandwich shop analogy indicates the shop owner is SUED INTO THE GROUND based off of the shop owner not, (as in never to anyone ever) serving pork based of his religion.  

 The cake shop didn't make a cake they would normally make - a product they make and serve based off their religion.  They didn't serve the customer based off their religion, it just happened to be cake.

 Those are not the same.  Legally they are extremely different.  You are saying a shop owner can be SUED INTO THE GROUND for not carrying a specific product in their inventory.  Where is this happening?

 I think part of the problem is that people interpret what is actually happening, and what business owners can and cant do with fictitious events that didn't happen.  Like MnSpring claiming businesses can be sued for not providing a service universally to all customers - I can not find any law anywhere that allows this, but I could be wrong, unfortunately people won't share their sources.

 How can we have a discussion about what's right if we can just fabricate part of the argument out of thin air?

 As a business owner you have rights, you can deny service but you can not in many cases discriminate against humans for certain voted on parameters like age, gender etc.  

 In turn humans can not legally attack your business for not providing a service you never claimed in any capacity to do.  If your business provides a service you have to follow the local laws, or change them.  Left or Right, if you don't like the laws where you live get out there and change them.

 I you are not fabricating events then could you point me to where anyone has SUED INTO THE GROUND a business where they didn't serve an item that they have never carried in their inventory?

 You said people can do this but won't provide sources.  You are using it in your argument so it must be part of the problem.

"So one can, SUE, that Sandwich Shop, INTO THE GROUND.
Because you could Not go down the street,
where they Served, Pork Sandwiches."

 Where is this happening?  My research indicates that this has never happened.

 

"Let's forget about the hypothetical sandwich.
How about the very Real
Discrimination against cops?"

 So lets use it as an argument, defend it, not provide any resource that's useable then pretend it never happened, then wonder why discussion here deteriorates in almost every topic.

 My contribution is that there were no laws broken.  None.  So no matter where you stand politically you have no legal ground to pursue the discrimination against cops, or any other profession.

 If you have outrage speak about it - use real, actual events, not made up ones to propagate change.

 The counter to this was to contend that a legal process that has never happened and can not be referenced - was at one time a valid point that should now be forgotten?  Why if there are resources available are they being withheld?

 Can you reference a law that removes all decision making power from the business owner?  I am familiar, owning my own businesses with how these laws work and have never seen one that completely revokes my power to choose clients.

 "any kind of power to choose"  

 Where is this happening?

 I see laws addressing discrimination, unfortunately Career is not in the parameters of the coffee shop cited in this thread.  From my point of view this makes it legal and not something that people can do anything about unless they work to change the law.  Crying wont help, complaining wont, making up legal scenarios that never existed wont.  

 Denying resources to people contributing to the conversation is unproductive as well.

Let's get real. An owner can refuse service ,to individuals ( no shirt ,no shoes ,no service, bad behavior etc.), but I don't think it's lawful ( or right) to refuse service to a group ,based on occupation ,sex ,race ..etc.  That is blatant  prejudice. The same can be said for the baker, I don't believe his customer ask about the owner's religion (or cared) just wanted a cake, which the owner should have provided.

 Some people can't be forced to carry a gun in war but they can be incarcerated for it I believe.  Isn't that what happened in Vietnam?