OK, My take:

1.) Alito & Scalia both gave (several) forceful statements before the case against gay marriage. Should they have recused as well?

2.) There have been no lawsuits (in the US) trying to force a church to perform a gay marriage. If one does come, it will fail.

“The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion… . Neither a state or the federal government may, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’” The fourth sentence in the above quote will quash any attempt to mandate that churches perform gay marriage, as it should be.

3.) Businesses are another matter. "Privately-owned/operated businesses and buildings. Privately-owned businesses and facilities that offer certain goods or services to the public -- including food, lodging, gasoline, and entertainment -- are considered public accommodations for purposes of federal and state anti- discrimination laws." Any business must follow the law when it comes to refusal of service, and are subject to penalties if found to be discriminatory. They are not churches or fraternal organizations. The baker was found in violation of this law and refused any deals offered by the prosecution, preferring to stand on her religious liberty. She lost. While she does have said liberty in her personal dealings, she cannot claim that her business is covered by that religious liberty. So, in exercising that "liberty", she lost business/customers and the shop closed. The invisible hand in action.

The Pizza shop never had any request to cater a gay anything. They made a public announcement to the press of their intentions and got some Andy Warhol time. They temporarily closed due to the backlash and will reopen after the heat dies down. The money rolling in has been to a GoFundMe campaign to cover a discrimination lawsuit that never came. Then GoFundMe closed all campaigns related to legal defense funds. And really, Pizza at a wedding reception??? Why not rent out Chuck-E-Cheese? You get a band free! That being said, I seriously disagree with the Hobby Lobby decision. 4.) No one has taken on the plural marriage red herring, so I will. In civil rights law, the courts are tasked with cases of discrimination against certain classes of individuals. The gay marriage case only gave rights to homosexuals in the legal construct of marriage, not a religious construct. The decision only applies to that class of citizens and that class of law, not the overall populace. Any case against plural marriage laws would apply to the populace at large, covering all marriages and thus would not come under the rubric of civil rights law. Any changes to plural marriage law would have to be legislated - and that ain't gonna happen.

~FIN~