text: State laws, or parts thereof, are often struck down by the SC.  It's the gay couple whose only injury is being offended.  The baker would be forced to be a significantly involved participant in what he considers a mockery of a sacred rite, which is arguably a greater (and Constitutional) harm than merely being offended. That's the part to which he objects, having otherwise NOT discriminated in the general conduct of business with the couple. The court will decide if they see it that way, or who is harmed the most.
  
  Contrary to what you've stated elsewhere, freedom to practice one's religion extends beyond choosing where you worship, and includes freedom from the state coercing you into violating your religious tenets.
  
  Of course you can CLAIM anything in the name of a religion; you can claim a cat is a dog, if you wish. The sticking point comes in proving you can support your claim. Not difficult, probably, for a Christian to prove he considers marriage a holy male-female covenant.