Courts are very fallible sweetie, they weren't in the case of the morally offended photographer. As a Christian, she has the right to be as bigoted as her little heart desires against anyone. As a business owner, she is obligated to provide her services regardless of the sex or sexual orientation (as well as a number of suspect classifications covered under the state's human rights act). Her allegedly Christian beliefs to the contrary are not her customers problem and the law simply doesn't provide a special right to refuse service on the basis of them. This couple asked to book her to take their photos because they had heard she was good, they got ambushed by her allegedly God-blessed bigotry for their efforts. Understandably annoyed by her I won't take your picture because God hates you and what you are doing response. They filed a complaint with the HRC. The right to refuse service hasn't been absolute for 50 years now, try and keep up.Sweetiepie, we are not slaves. No one has a right to force me to marry them.
And you need a license to get married.
That is reality, and that means either you do not understand the Court's decision, or the Court is wrong.
Is it your opinion that the Court is infallible?
Yes dear, you need a license from the state in order to be married. They're actually a relatively new idea that were inspired by the Eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th century in this country. They wanted the state to ensure that the "wrong" people could not be legally married. They also came up with the ideas of the pre-marital blood test for infectious diseases, racial purity laws, forced sterilizations and the list goes on. They were a very effective lot.
Prior to the 20th century, proof of marriage was either by state issued certificate, or proving that the two of you had been together for a period of time. Many married couples and in rural areas, most married couples, did not have state issued certificates, you had to track down a justice of the peace or judge to get one. The licensing of marriage is not proof that marriage is not a right, but proof you didn't know that our social Darwinist ancestors snuck those in so the wrong folk couldn't just say they were married anymore. They needed the state's approval to say I do.
Marriage is still our right as Americans and according to the SCOTUS, it is a right which can only be denied to us if there is a compelling interest of the state which is served by the denial of it. Our right to marry even extends to most of those currently incarcerated in prison and it can't be taken away from dead-beat parents, so tell me, what interest of the state is served by the state having the authority to determine who we may and may not marry based on their sex?