I'm not saying his view of how to read it is incorrect, but simply its not the ONLY way in which to view it. He says to rule in their favor would be to rule religious groups have a right to public funding. I'm saying that another way to look at it is ruling in their favor means that religious groups should have the same right to funds as anyone else and that arbitrarily withholding funds because you disagree with their KIND of discrimination is wrong.
Since we're not talking about random groups but college groups, this is my view....
College group A, lets say a greek fraternity, discriminates based on gender (only males can join)
College group B, lets say a christian organization, discriminates based on sexual preference (won't let homosexuals join)
what I'm saying is its wrong to give PUBLIC colleges the arbitrary power to say "We'll give Group A funds because we don't mind their kind of discrimination because its based on tradition, but we disagree with group B's discrimination because its based on bigoted religious views"
I also see it less of a freedom of speech issue and more of a right to assembly thing mixed with it. Unless you're going to apply the rules fairly across the board with a PUBLIC school using PUBLIC funding, then the rule shouldn't be in place. A school should not get to pick and choose which kind of discrimination its fine with or what reasoning for discrimination its fine with. To me, this is what this ruling seems to set up is a situation where there is no uniformity, but rather the ability by the schools to arbitrarily deem certain social requirements or actions of a group of people "okay" or not without being consistent with the use of public funds.