I'd have to agree on a dissent opinion, even though I do not know Sotomayer and Ginsburg's opinions thoroughly. There's a reason. When something like public work (tax paid) is done on the playground for a religious institution with its' own by-laws and rules, I see a precedent being established. Since the Lutheran Institution is a private one receiving public funds, does create an avenue for unjust discrimination. If the Lutheran, or other religious institution are to receive continued funding, then that institution must adhere to all public mandates - since now the property is a marriage, if you will, between public and private ownership (the playground.) Sounds like a Trojan Horse victory trophy to me. As though this was some herald of religious defense victory, when in truth it isn't. The Majority Justices fell for the bait in as much as the Persian fell for that of the Greeks.
If that religious institution refuses marrying people of same gender, will the state refuse funding?