The answer is "no," but let me explain what I mean.
There is nothing any court can order that anyone cannot defy, so the executive is not unique in that respect. The only differences are 1) the authority vested in each party and 2) the consequences of defying said order.
Each order has its own set of consequences that is dependent on other magistrates to carry out.
In the case of the executive disagreeing with the judiciary, one must recognize that the court does not hold a superior position over either of the other two branches of government, but there are checks and balances to prevent abuse of power (except when, as we've seen over and over again -- including in this case -- the legislature and/or the executive refuse to stand up to the arbitrary whims of an increasingly brazen judicial oligarchy).
If the legislature believes the executive has not fulfilled the obligation of his office, they can remove him at their discretion. If they do not impeach and remove him, but the people disagree with his decision, they can replace him with someone else according to their laws concerning elections.
However, if he is upholding his oath of office, and the legislature and the people agree, he is safe from reprimand on that account, and the judiciary have not control over the force or the purse, so their decision carries the weight of neither.
The problem with this, and it may be insurmountable, is that relying on impeachement to hold an executive to his oath, instead of respect for the divided rule of law, can lead to tyranny of the majority.
I give you the example of Andrew Jackson. Knowing that he had the mob on his side, Jackson defied the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of the Cherokee, and used the Army to remove them from the Carolinas to Oklahoma, the infamous Trail of Tears.
Okay, let me explain my "sure", then. The executive is justified in ignoring a Court when it is a matter of the Court infringing on the delegated powers of the Executive. For example, the Courts cannot override a pardon. The Courts cannot issue arrest warrants on the Executive (but can on a Legislator, as long as for a crime and not while in or going to a session). The Executive can declare Privilege over subpoenaed documents.
But in this case, the Executive was already issuing licenses under Chapter 207. It would be awfully hard for them to stop issuing them under existing code, and near impossible for them to continue to issue them to heterosexuals, but claim Executive discretion to NOT issue them to homosexuals after the Court and the Legislature agreed they were eligible under existing code. Surely as night follows day, they would have been slapped with an "unequal protection of the law" 14th amendment suit in Federal court the next day.