Hoping Obergefell isn't a bad precedent

Long ago, involving some people I knew, a pastor refused to perform a marriage of a female-male couple, at least one of whom grew up in the church. Why? They were living together. Meaning, everyone new they were having sex before marriage. "Living in sin."

The parents of the woman left the church because the pastor refused to perform the ceremony. As far I know, there was no lawsuit. They found another church..

Was the pastor or church committing a crime? If so, who's the victim?

Another experience: longtime friends, including one from another country, were engaged. The women's home church declined to perform the wedding because the groom wouldn't convert to Christianity. As far as I know, there was no lawsuit. They had their wedding at a college chapel.

And in both instances, it seems a Justice of the Peace was available or some other "government official" could have been hired. They weren't. Another clergy person took their place.

I don't have the knowledge right now to make a judgment about if the Obergefell vs. Hodges case legalizing gay marriage is "correct" on a strict Constitutional bases.

What I WILL say, is if it's used as a precedent for gays getting married at a Justice of the Peace, I don't have a problem with that. Not exactly happy, because ALL laws favoring married people over single people should be gotten rid of. I believe in the Separation of Marriage and State, but I view that its lack of existence as just "one of those crappy things" and it's not a top priority.

But I'll ALSO say:  if this Court ruling sets a precedent that FORCES pastors to perform gay weddings (or ANY wedding,  as described above), or forces people to serve flowers or bake cakes to people they don't want to serve, I'd hope, to the extent possible, to be at the barricades. And NOT because of I'm against gays. This would be ALL ASPECTS of the First Amendment under assault.

Which side would you be on?