The issue is that of equating race with morality. Race/ethnicity does not make one moral or immoral, but behavior does. And marrying men with men is immoral.
The problem is that SCOTUS (5 out of 9) disagreed with what the men who wrote and ratified the Constitution believed, given their overall high view of Scripture and Judaeo-Christian morality, and insanely rationalized that they would have protected this, as if they were like men who rejected that transcendent historical standard for morality .
One can argue that they would not have sanctioned interracial marriage, though that is unlikely, and that to marry such is a moral issue. And indeed it is to some. In such a case a distinction must be made btwn denying a race a service on the basis that their race is not worthy of such the same services others are, versus denying them a incorrect nature of the service.
Meaning that to deny a racial couple a marriage service would be a racist violation of public accommodations law, whereas to deny a interracial couple a marriage service can be argued to be the same as denying divorced persons the same. Or btwn a Catholic and a Protestant.
I do not agree that interracial marriage is immoral, but to not allow a business to deny an optional service easily obtained elsewhere, and which is for the express purpose of celebrating what they sincerely see as immoral, arguably based upon the historical sense of morality of the Founders and its main source, means that no one will be able to deny a celebratory marriage service btwn man and animals, once that is legalized.
Which it will be, consistent with the rejection of historical Judaeo-Christian morality,and adoption of the ever-morphing immorality of secular humanism.