While I respect that within the Christian community there is a huge range of opinion on the issue of homosexuality, I feel in no uncertain terms that that is an entirely separate matter than the civil ruling around marriage that has been handed down. Here in the US, we grant a substantial number of civil advantages to married people. That's in part why this ruling is so important. And as long as we are going to grant a number of civil advantages to married people, then we have a moral obligation to make sure that those civil advantages are available to all people. Maybe the more important question is,"Why do we grant such civil advantages to married people"?
In addition to this question, it's important to state that I truly believe that clergy should NOT be allowed to legally marry people. Marriage is a civil arrangement and therefore should be granted under civil authorities, not church authorities. If people want a religious ceremony to be married before God, they can go to clergy and ask for them to perform a religious wedding ceremony, after they have had a civil ceremony. This is the way it is in many other countries around the world. This entire debate would settle down if clergy were not the ones with the "powers invested in me by the laws of this state" to pronounce people married. We really need to separate civil from religious all the way through. Then, clergy would have the full right to say yes or no without impinging on the legal rights of those involved.
As for businesses wanting to withhold services to those with a lifestyle with whom they disagree, I just simply have to say, is this really the only action in life that you disagree with? Clearly, they service people who take part in lifestyle issues that they don't agree with. Why single out this particular action? It is not your call as a provider of public services to make moral judgements on the people you serve. So if you work in a county clerk office and part of your job is to give out marriage licenses then it is your moral and legal obligation to do your job without interpretation or personal consideration. If you can't do this, then you need to quit your job rather than trying to do your job discriminately. There was a time when I was offered a job as a liquor manager in a local grocery store. I was uncomfortable with that being my central job so I turned it down in spite of better pay. I did not ask the grocery store to shift the manner in which is sold liquor to people. But I made a choice back then to not be the one potentially selling alcohol to those who were drunks or couldn't really afford it. That was my choice. It was not my call to make choices for those buying alcohol.
As for people saying that this ruling should not be a court order but rather decided by the people...our track record on righting wrongs through the vote is not very good. Outlawing slavery, giving women the right to vote, getting rid of the Jim Crow laws, may not ever have happened in some places had a higher authority not stepped in. Sometimes our personal opinion doesn't matter. What does matter is what is right and fair to all according to our constitution. Remember how our pledge ends...with freedom and justice for all. We need to keep that in mind as we navigate the public sphere.