I would guess in the case of state activist kritocrats taking things into their own hands and trying to legislate from the bench at state level.
I said the following on another thread, to flesh out the thought. Texas is treating the ruling as legitimate.
The other point was raised to illuminate that resolution of this constitutional crisis can take more than one path. The path selected, so far, is to pit individual religious liberty against the constitutional right to homosexual marriage. That approach adds legitimacy to the SCOTUS ruling, because it takes a view that there is a constitutional right to homosexual marriage. In other words, the path to resolution involves obedience to the law.
But if one adopts a point of view that the ruling is flat out wrong, illegitimate, or whatever you want to call it, and holds that there is no constitutional right to homosexual marriage, no matter what SCOTUS has to say on the subject, then the path to resolution looks like civil disobedience.