[Southack]

"His refusal to allow other images is what makes his case and argument legally distingishable from just his right to have a display. That point is not at issue, at issue is his right to display only his chosen religius symbols and exclude all others - that is what Moore is fighting for."

Moore is entitled to his own tastes in decoration. Your initial point might be valid if he was denying others their rights to freely express their religions in areas in which they are entitled, but as for the building in question, only Moore has the authority to decorate it.

[TheOtherOne]

but as for the building in question, only Moore has the authority to decorate it.

That is precisely the point I dispute. In his home - fine, on his lawn - fine, in his private office - fine. In the PUBLIC rotunda of the Supreme Court building - nope. That is not his to decorate in his personal religion to the exclusion of all others.