Sources, man
I know it will draw ire mentioning I saw it on Fox News.
founding fathers were rather more militant about separation of powers, which you seem to miss, than they were about homosexuality. You argue that the courts interpret law and not make them, then complain that the government is no longer for the people. The implication is that, for the government to be for the people to your satisfaction, it should have stopped the courts from making this ruling
Just about everybody was against homosexuality, so there was no need to mention opposition to it. In what culture other than now has it been tolerated? The Constitution defines how the government is to be there for the people. The court should not have made that ruling because the issue is not addressed in the Constitution. If the people had voted it for same-sex marriage, and the court struck that down, that too would be a ruling contrary to the Constitution. That is an issue left for the states to decide.
You say that as though gender were always a clear-cut thing:
Um…yeah. You are either a male or female. Or a freak, if there is such a thing as a human hermaphrodite. What are we, Hutts?

And it is a choice to commit adultery and idolatry and so on. Would you also like to refuse other sinners service or why would you single out homosexuals?
Well, everybody is a sinner (including myself), so if I looked at sin, I could't serve anybody. Now if they wanted a cake, in this example, for say a graduation or birthday party, no problem, provided it's not a homosexually-themed product. But a same-sex wedding, forget it. And they could go somewhere else. Live and let live, right? I don't have to support their lifestyle, they don't have to support my business.