Well, I don't think that Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas thought of themselves as distorting the original intent of the Bill of Rights. It's just that, after the Bill of Rights was adopted, we amended the Constitution with the Fourteenth Amendment, an amendment specifically designed to limit the power of states vis-a-vis individuals.
That's a shame because I think a narrow interpretation of the Constitution would be sufficient to secure all righteous liberties if applied correctly and honestly. For example; what need was there, in the literal sense, for the 14th Amendment in order to free slaves? An honest reading of the Constitution before the existence of the 14th should have settled the matter. Men are men and all men are free men.
Well, the problem is that when the Constitution was drafted, slavery was recognized to be a legitimate institution. Slaves were counted for purposes of allocating the number of representatives each state should have, but slaves could only be counted as "three fifths" of a whole person. "Indians not taxed" could not be counted at all. "Men are men and all men are free men" was, to say the least, not a principle that had yet received universal acceptance amongst our Founding Fathers. And it was actually the Thirteenth Amendment which outlawed slavery and, because of our preceding history and traditions, it was at least felt to be necessary at the time to put an end to the practice.
The long and the short of these decisions is that states have to comply with the First Amendment when dealing with their own citizens. That means that they can't ban speech, they can't shut down the press, they have to permit citizens to assemble, they can't forbid the free exercise of religion and they can't violate the establishment clause. That's the problem that Judge Moore ran into here.
Yes it was. He was denied his free exercise of religion and free speech.