yeah this is actually a really fun test case for why the scalia textualism thing has always just been a cover for reactionary bullshit, because the correct textual position in this case is to support the notion that title vii already has language to cover this, and yet 3/5 of the supposed strict constructionists were on the other side of the issue, with alito writing a 10 million page dissent about all the unforeseen applications of the law etc (which scalia also did all the time)
tl;dr all 9 judges are political actors and constitutional originalism/textualism are bullshit excuses