Not sure what distinction you think that is but the legal problem the baker got into stems from anti-discrimination laws. If anything compels one to make gay wedding cakes, it's those. Not the Supreme Court decision. That's what I'm explaining.
The court decision doesn't compel anyone to do anything, if you aren't an official involved in marriage licenses. So it would be hard to engage in civil disobedience against a law that didn't require you to do anything. You want to engage in civil disobedience against anti-discrimination laws? That's a bit more practical because there's actually something you can do there.
That what this thread is about after all. "Civil Disobedience", right there in the title. Got to have something to disobey.
But the decision does do something to those who do not issue marriage licenses: it purports to require us all to consider homosexual couples who have been issued a state marriage license to be married, and to consider the issuance of such a license or any rite held pursuant to it to be a wedding.
Most directly this affects anyone who provides catering or other services used at weddings — conscientious objection to the subversion of the concept of marriage can be reframed as violating anti-discrimination laws, even if the business owner would be happy to provide other services to homosexuals. Again, there is a difference between conscientious objection to the subversion of marriage and the refusal to sell products or provide services to homosexuals, whether you or a Democrat Party gauleiter in Oregon see the difference or not.