Who said he did? Did I? That certainly wasn't what I intended to intimate - Judge Moore has run up against the Establishment clause, not the 14'th. The 14'th is merely the vehicle that causes the Establishment clause to apply to him in the first place, the First Amendment being one of those privileges and/or liberties that the 14'th mentions people shall not be deprived of by the various states...
Hold on, now. That's an assumption that you and the courts are making. Way back when, in Post, oh, I don't know, something with three digits, I stated that the provisions of the first amendment can only be applied via the 14th amendment to the extent that it comports with the actual language thereof - "privileges and immunites", "life, liberty, or property without due process of law", "equal protection of the laws". Somewhere in there a violation must lie. Where, and how?
the First Amendment being one of those privileges and/or liberties that the 14'th mentions people shall not be deprived of by the various states...
This begins to address the question, but it still needs to be asked: Is it truly one of the "privileges" of citizens to put whatever religious decoration they want in their courthouses & other government buildings? Mathematically, that's impossible, so someone's going to be deprived of that "privilege", is that not correct?