Sorry for your misunderstanding, but the Minor case as cited by Gray in WKA is an excellent example of stare decisis. The Minor decision rejected a 14th amendment claim of citizenship and instead recognized natural born citizenship for the person in question and for women, as a class. In the appeal leading up to the WKA decision at the SCOTUS, it was suggested that the lower court decision, if upheld, would create natural born citizens of those who were born in the country to aliens without those parents first becoming naturalized citizens. Gray recognized that the court UNANIMOUSLY rejected Virginia Minor's 14th amendment claims because she fit the court's definition of NBC. In respect to that decision, Gray could NOT declare WKA to be a natural born citizen and that the Minor decision categorically exempted NBCs from being subject to the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. He thus affirmed the Minor decision and was bound to respect it by using different means to declare citizenship status for Wong Kim Ark. Ark was not declared to be a natural born citizen AND his citizenship was subject to different criteria than is required for natural born citizens.
Actually no, not in the way you would have us believe. In Minor v. Happersett the question before the court was not whether Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen or an naturalized citizen or native born or whatever other category you choose to create. The question was whether when the 14th Amendment granted privileges and immunities to citizens - natural born or otherwise - it included the right to vote. The court did not rule on what kind of citizenship Minor had. It ruled that citizenship of any kind did not automatically include the right to vote, and denied Minor that ability. The definition of what constituted a natural born citizen was not a question before the court, so any comments on natural born citizenship were obiter dictum.