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.
Nicely put. This is why I don't prefer an equal-protection argument in this case.
Wait a minute, are you telling me that if Moore had not put the Commandments up, and simply insisted upon leaving the rotunda area unadorned, and refused to allow citizens to put up displays of their own, he would be just as much in violation of the Constitution as he is now? That's how your post came across to me.