In most, there were public accommodations laws which forbid discrimination toward gay people. In most, oddly enough, there wasn't even legal "gay marriage" in the localities involved, at least not at the time. And in several, notably bakeries, the dispute wasn't even a gay wedding, but the reception after. Which is kind of strange, since receptions are seldom religious affairs.
|Image from source, Washington Post|
The case that was before the Supreme Court was a wedding photographer. Or, more precisely, a commitment ceremony photographer,* who didn't want to take pictures for a gay couple. But SCOTUS declined to hear the case, so the lower court decision stands: the photographer loses.
*It should be noted that in the marriage equality fight, we're often confronted with the "why do they have to call it marriage?" argument. Allegedly, if we were to only be happy with civil unions, domestic partnerships and commitment ceremonies, all would be well, and the battle would end. Except that in this case, as with several others, there was no legal marriage.
Supreme Court declines case of photographer who denied service to gay couple
The Supreme Court declined on Monday to consider whether a New Mexico photographer had a right to refuse service to a same-sex couple who wanted her to record their commitment ceremony. . .
Read more at: Washington Post