We weren't talking about the establishment clause; we were talking about the equal-protection clause. If posting a religious view while excluding other religious views violates equal protection, does posting a secular view while excluding other secular views violate equal protection? That's what this boils down to.
Not to mention that the courts do not now, nor have they ever issued advisory opinions about what might happen in some hypothetical situation
You need to read more court opinions and arguments. They constantly ask out loud what the implications would be of a particular ruling - If we allow X does it mean we have to allow Y? If we prohibit A does it mean B must go, too? They simply can't do their jobs otherwise.
The court ruled on the basis of the settled law regarding the Establishment Clause. If you want to muse to yourself about something they didn't discuss, and how you think the law ought to be, that's fine, but Moore has clearly run afoul of how the law is.
They constantly ask out loud what the implications would be of a particular ruling - If we allow X does it mean we have to allow Y? If we prohibit A does it mean B must go, too? They simply can't do their jobs otherwise.
I've read more than a few, and what I mean ought to be tolerably clear. Whether or not you think X implies Y is neither here nor there - the courts rule on the facts before them, and the fact that inquest believes that this ruling will have some impact in some unrelated sphere simply does not enter into the process. Sorry. There's always the amendment process, though.