By what right does Judge Moore deny that liberty to others who seek time in the public square?
and then say:
but we could assure complete fairness by closing the door to everyone, if you like.
Either people have the "privilege" of putting displays in the public square, or they don't. If they do, then "closing the door to everyone" would be just as unacceptable as closing the door to some people. Unless, of course, you wanted to argue the case on equal-protection grounds ;-)
Nicely put. This is why I don't prefer an equal-protection argument in this case. I just figured I'd lay out another option for you ;)
We could, as I say, guarantee fair treatment for everyone by simply taking away their soapboxes and shutting down the public square, but that would certainly interfere with the right of people to express themselves and their faith in a peaceable manner. And so, given my fondness for the utilitarian notion that more speech is better than less, I am inclined to argue that the fact that we might be less than perfect in insuring equal access should not trump the right of free expression for as many citizens as possible - shutting down the square serves no one, where we ought to be trying to serve as many as possible. And while we might not successfully insure perfect access for everyone, I'm really quite certain that we can find a way to do a better job than Roy Moore has done.