You are being disingenuous. The question is not "is it illegal?" The question is"is if moral?"

All kinds of atrocities have been committed with the full force of the law behind them. It doesn't make them any less of an atrocity.

There are people who honestly and truly believe this applies to abortion and forms of contraception.

These people are honestly and in good conscience saying “that is legal, but extremely immoral and my conscience refuses to allow me to participate.”

There is currently a case before the SCOTUS regarding whether adoption agencies can discriminate against gays and lesbians.

Again this is by people who have thought deeply about the issue, and decided that public policies is immoral. They are refusing to support it because they honestly believe it’s immoral.

Can’t the government say “you’re entitled to your beliefs, but you’re not entitled to act on them in the public sphere?”

What's actually being disingenuous, pointing out the formal route for settling these issues or using terms like "atrocity"?

"Is it moral?" is a complex question in many cases and that's partly why the courts exist - to help transform those moral questions with subjective answers into actionable objective ones.

Right but the formal process isn’t the only way to affect change. It would be really weird if you were like “if you don’t like segregation you shouldn’t protest or have sit-ins, just contact your elected representatives.”

Yes, but the question is about whether or not companies should take stances on these things, and the inevitable moral complexity throws up obstacles given that companies are comprised of individuals with differing opinions.

Discussion of that complexity and those obstacles is not helped by simplistic condemnation of those who don't share your (general "your") point of view either on the political topic itself or the more abstract argument of corporate stance generally.

There is a good question as to wether it makes sense for companies to take stances on unrelated political issues where I think you can make a strong case about staying out of it.

But it doesn’t answer the question of what to do when a company’s actions in the natural course of business will end up taking a stance even if that stance is the status quo.