I don’t think thats what Kennedy said. Iirc he said that the ability to discuss and teach from a religious perspective. But that shouldn’t be taken as being able to act based on one.
What this case says is that the ability to marry (which the NC law guarantees and protects) isn’t enough. People who disagree with that should not have the right to reasonable accomadations of their religious beliefs.
However I think there’s more at work here than a sociopathological need to require someone who personally disagrees with your marriage to preside over it.
What I think this is about is finding a way to drive religious Conservatives out of government service, and specifically the judicial branch. Set up a construct where Conservative judges/magistrates must choose between their faith and their jobs. When they leave their jobs they can be replaced by Progressive judges/magistrates. Which will have an impact on ALL issues that come before the courts.