I think there's a solid point in this regard because when they rule on legislative issues (as opposed to constitutional) there is a remedy for the legislature t

I think there's a solid point in this regard because when they rule on legislative issues (as opposed to constitutional) there is a remedy for the legislature to override if the interpreted behavior was not what the legislature wants (rather than just intended). At this point, to reverse this, Republican (presumably) congressmen would have to actively introduce legislation excluding the protections for LGBT individuals, which would make it much more unpalatable than the current strategy of "dragging their feet" (as with gay marriage) to prevent the law from moving forward. My only fear, probably unjustified, is that the logic and precedent used here can be used to generalize the protections in unexpected and undesirable ways.