If the Supreme Court gets to redefine the meaning of one word, there's nothing to stop them from redefining any other word -- or all of them. As Cavanaugh pointed out in his dissent, it's not the role of the court to legislate, and Congress' recent attempts to amend the Civil Rights act proves they know the language is inadequate for protecting LGBT persons and that it's their job to fix it.

You're not wrong that congress should fix things too. But I don't think they're trying to redefine the word.

From the impression I got (and I only read the outline of the decision), the most important part seems to be:

> A statutory violation occurs if an employer intentionally relies in part on an individual employee’s sex when deciding to discharge the employee. Because discrimination on the basis of homosexuality or transgender status requires an employer to intentionally treat individual employees differently because of their sex, an employer who intentionally penalizes an employee for being homosexual or transgender also violates Title VII.

I feel like that's more an interpretation of the law than redefinition of it