How did the court get it wrong?
She knowingly and consentually got a job working for an organization a) famous for misogyny and b) with very strong 1A protections to engage in that hatred, then tried to sue when they fired her for being female. Of course they’re allowed to do that.
There are very significant problems with allowing a Catholic school to exist, but once you let that happen, it’s patently absurd to let people successfully sue them for Catholicism. The correct solution is to ban Catholic schools.
The person to whom you’re replying is correct. We decide, as a society, that certain clauses in contracts are illegal, whether they’re signed or not. We haven’t yet reached the tier in the libertarian hellscape that any contract that you can be coerced into signing is legal by the fact that you signed it.
There’s a number of laws that regularly get cited for this kind of situation including gender discrimination (if they would not fire a man for being married to a woman, they cannot fire a woman for being married to a woman). We as a people and as a democracy need to decide the degree to which we need to regulate the power imbalances between organizations and individuals.
It may be that there wasn’t a legal path forward, or it may be that the decision will be overturned on appeal, but we can’t simply decide that an organization should be allowed to do whatever it wants just because it’s openly prejudiced.