This is actually quite clear and is being misrepresented by both the rigth and the left as to what it means.
The left claims a victory where there isn’t one - the judge specifically said that the property in question, after it had been removed from the tax exemption (which had NOTHING to do with the church itself!), is exempt from the ruling!
The right claims a defeat because a church can’t use “it’s” property as it sees fit. The judgement ONLY effects property which the church agreed to allow free and equal access. The judge ruled that, once the church asked for and received a tax exemption that specified that the property must be open to all - the church can not then decide no to abide by that agremment.
This has NOTHING to do with the First Amendment.
How far we have fallen.