Here’s a basic breakdown of the facts from Guadalupe.

Agnes Deirdre Morrissey-Berru taught at Our Lady of Guadalupe School and later sued the school for employment discrimination. However, the school claimed that Morrissey-Berru’s position was exempt from anti-discrimination laws under previously established exceptions because her role involved teaching religion and praying with students and her job performance was measured in part on religion-based metrics. This dispute, paired with another similar case, made its way through the legal system all the way up to the Supreme Court.

In Wednesday’s ruling, Justice Samuel Alito authored the opinion ruling in favor of the religious schools. He was joined by the court’s four other conservative-leaning justices and, interestingly, by two liberal-leaning justices, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. Expanding the previously established “ministerial exception,” the Supreme Court found that this exception applies not just to literal ministers, but also employees such as these teachers whose jobs involve religious duties.

“Among other things, the Religion Clauses [of the Constitution] protect the right of churches and other religious institutions to decide matters ‘of faith and doctrine’ without government intrusion,” wrote Alito. “State interference in that sphere would obviously violate the free exercise of religion, and any attempt by government to dictate or even to influence such matters would constitute one of the central attributes of an establishment of religion. The First Amendment outlaws such intrusion.”

“This does not mean that religious institutions enjoy a general immunity from secular laws, but it does protect their autonomy with respect to internal management decisions that are essential to the institution’s central mission,” the justice continued. “And a component of this autonomy is the selection of the individuals who play certain key roles.”

This decision sets the stage for the right balance between gay and transgender rights and religious autonomy to emerge.

Most people, including most Republicans, believe that gay and transgender people should be protected under anti-discrimination laws. The immorality of firing someone from a grocery store for who they love or evicting someone from an apartment over their gender identity is obvious and self-evident. However, conservatives and other religious liberty advocates rightly insist there must be limits to these protections in order to protect religious freedom and respect the First Amendment.

It’s easy to see why many believe a private Catholic school should not be forced through anti-discrimination law to employ in a religious role someone like me, who, as an openly gay man, flouts Catholic teaching on homosexuality. The standards the Supreme Court just laid out in Guadalupe would give private religious schools appropriate leeway to discriminate in religious hiring yet still not allow them to discriminate in secular positions such as janitors. Such religion-based exemptions in no way undermine the ability to apply robust anti-discrimination protections to secular businesses.

Nonetheless, many left-wing critics immediately bashed the decision:

But outrage over the Supreme Court’s decision is woefully misplaced. To maintain our pluralist society and coexist in peace, gay and transgender people and religious citizens alike should be willing to live with this eminently reasonable compromise.

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a freelance journalist and Washington Examiner contributor.