"It is completely possible that a gay might have a valid, factually sustained complaint under federal law."
I don't see how -- there's no federal statutory protection for gays. Now a gay black man might have a valid complaint based on his race, not his gayness. But I bet there were plenty of people in the EEOC who were doing what they could do to extend protections based on gayness, despite no statutory authority.
"The Supreme Court ruling was a gross misinterpretation of the Constitution -- a terrible example of judicial activism -- and Roberts helped to bring it about."
Yes it was, and in some way, yes he did. It still tells us absolutely nothing about his judicial philosophy. That is much more clear to me after reading the "french fry" case.
I agree that it's proof of nothing, let alone his judicial philosophy. However, it is one disturbing piece in an otherwise good overall picture. It suggests that there may be some more disturbing pieces. We shall see.