None whatsoever. Follow the logic of the court here and apply it to the policy there. The logic of the court is breaking an issue down to the sex of the individuals and asking if they wouldn't have been discriminated against but for the sex of that individual. If you fire a man for dating a man, but wouldn't fire a woman for dating a man, you wouldn't have fired him but for his sex. The restrictions on transgender individuals in the military is a restriction on those who are undergoing or have undergone medical or psychological treatment, something the military has many, many restrictions on in other scenarios. If the military bars a man undergoing long-term hormone therapy and would also bar a woman undergoing the same hormone therapy, there is no "but-for" discrimination based on sex.
There's something in here both the celebrating left and complaining right are misunderstanding. This ruling doesn't really extend Title VII protections to LGBTQ issues. What it does is reason the protections existing for sex and applies them to situations of sexuality and gender. If you fire a man for kissing a man but wouldn't fire a woman for kissing a man, the only material difference is the individual's sex, hence it is sex discrimination. This is a relatively clean answer in terms of sexuality, it's much less clean in terms of gender. In order to reach the conclusion here for transgender issue, you have to apply the same logic. If you would fire a man who presents as a woman but not a woman who presents as a woman, the only difference is sex, therefore it's sex discrimination. You might have just noticed an ideological conflict here: A transgender woman who is fired where a biological woman would not be is now protected not by virtue of being a transgender woman, but by virtue of being a biological man.
There will almost certainly come a time where people will try and invoke transgender protections only to find that not only do those protections not exist, but that Supreme Court precedent on the subject is reasoned only by specifically biological sex, and only applies cleanly in situations of transition from one gender to the other in the binary. Attempt to apply SCOTUS' rationale to gender fluidity, you'll find the gray area real fast.