I didn't say they were equivalently evil acts. I used the "sundown laws" as an example to establish the principle that there exist a ) immoral laws that should not be obeyed b) laws that can't be easily changed by the victim of the law.

While suppressing the baker's free speech rights is not an equivalent offense, it's a violation of his free speech rights (and therefore immoral) and trying to change the law is likely to be a futile effort (which I think the people making the suggestion know).