Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, who has fought against legalizing gay marriage, told CNN on Friday that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to make same-sex marriage legal nationwide was worse than the Court's 19th century decision to uphold racial segregation.

"I believe it's worse because it affects our entire system of morality and family values," Moore told CNN.

Moore said in the CNN interview that same-sex marriage does not exist in the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court justices "presumed" to find one.

Moore also said Friday that the justices disregarded legal precedent and were ruling by their feelings in the case, according to a story in The Gadsden Times.

According to the Times story Moore predicted "a religious battle that is just beginning" but stopped short of calling for direct resistance to the decision.

The New York Times quoted Moore as saying he plans to continue pressing for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

Efforts by AL.com to reach Moore for comment Friday were unsuccessful.

Southern Poverty Law Center President Richard Cohen, whose group has fought in court for gay marriage rights in Alabama, believes Moore also laid the ground work Friday for defying the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage.

Cohen cited Moore's dissent in an Alabama Supreme Court opinion issued a few hours after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its gay marriage decision.

The dissent was in the case of American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida vs. Gladys Tellis. In that case Tellis and others had sued the insurance company regarding coverage. A trial court judge denied the insurance company's request to send the matter to arbitration. The insurance company appealed that ruling to the Alabama Supreme Court, which today reversed the lower court's ruling.

Cohen stated that Moore in the dissent "made the unprecedented claim that he was not bound by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court that conflict with his view of the U.S. Constitution."

In his dissent Moore writes "the Supreme Court's interpretation of a federal statute does not preclude all lower courts from considering constitutional questions the Supreme Court has never considered."

Moore went on to state: "If the Supreme Court's precedent interpreting a federal statute conflicts with the United States Constitution itself, then our duty is not to predict the next bend in the crooked path by asking, 'What would the Supreme Court do?' Moore writes. "Instead, our duty, under oath, is to ask, 'What does the Constitution say?'

"Here, that Constitution says the policyholders have a right to a jury trial. Furthermore, one may give up such an invaluable right, even in a case where an injury has already occurred and a cause of action exists, only when the waiver of that right is knowing, willing, and voluntary, and in this case it was not," Moore writes.

Cohen also stated that Moore's "alter ego -- the Foundation for Moral Law, the private organization run by his wife and for which he serves as president emeritus -- announced that 'the battle for traditional marriage will continue despite the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.'"

According to the Foundation, the U.S. Supreme Court has "no legal authority to redefine marriage."

"Justice Moore is fundamentally wrong," Cohen stated." The U.S. Constitution is the 'supreme law of the land,' and U.S. Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Constitution are binding on all state and federal courts. Justice Moore's claim that he is not bound by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court with which he disagrees is an invitation to anarchy. His statements reflect, once again, that he is not fit for the office that he holds."

Moore has fought against efforts to allow gay marriage in Alabama. He has made public statements and issued a statement to Alabama probate judges advising them not to issue licenses following a federal judge's ruling declaring Alabama's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.

Updated at 8:55 p.m. June 26, 2015 with New York Times comment from Moore