Already you've begun to misread me. There's no "ought" about it. If equal protection means that officials can't make religious displays without allowing other religious displays, then it does (not "ought to") mean that they can't make secular displays without allowing other secular displays. I'll put it simpler form:
Mr. Government Official wants to say P because it's important to him. You want to say Q because it's important to you. Mr. Government Official gets to say P. You don't get to say Q. Inequality, plain and simple. There is no way around that, regardless of the specific nature of P and Q.
Now, you can either talk about the equal-protection clause, or you can talk about the establishment clause. They are not the same. The only possible way that any portion of the Bill of Rights can be covered by the 14th amendment is if it comports with the language thereof. The phrase "equal protection" is left without elaboration. Realistically, it only means just that - equal protection, not equal treatment. But we've accepted the legal fiction that it does mean equal treatment. Furthermore, it's understood to mean equal treatment by any type of law (such as those which impose heavier burdens on certain racial/ethnic groups), not just those that relate to the Bill of Rights. Again, there's no "ought" or "should be" or any of that subjective garbage. It just plain is.
And as I explained yesterday, the courts agree with me about the EP clause. They don't use it as the vehicle for incorporating the BOR. The 11th Circuit court didn't pursue the "equal protection" angle at all. So that makes it seem rather curious to me to hear you talking about "settled" law when you're completely making up your own legal arguments.
And now you may answer my question directly: by what right doeas Judge Moore enjoy the power of the state to promote his religion, while simultaneously denying that freedom to others?
By the same right he'd be able to use the power of the state to promote his secular views while simultaneously denying that same "freedom" to others.
Let me start by apologizing for my tone last night. I got a bit snippier than was necessary, but I will try not to do it again. I am, however, human, and fallible, so perhaps you will grant me some leeway if I should stumble. ;)
And as I explained yesterday, the courts agree with me about the EP clause. They don't use it as the vehicle for incorporating the BOR. The 11th Circuit court didn't pursue the "equal protection" angle at all. So that makes it seem rather curious to me to hear you talking about "settled" law when you're completely making up your own legal arguments.
I strongly suggest you review the posts thus far. You suggested in 363 that:
IOW, in order to make the case that Moore's actions are unconstitutional, one would have to show that he abridged anyone's privileges or immunities, or denied anyone life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deprived anyone of the equal protection of the laws.
To which I responded in 379 thus:
Judge Moore used the platform of the courthouse to promote his own personal beliefs, thus enjoying the liberty to do so, and yet denied an atheist organization the same liberty when they sought to place a display - a sculpture or picture of an atom, according to the trial court record - representing their own beliefs in the same courthouse rotunda. Thus, Judge Moore has promoted his beliefs, yet denied the freedom of others to do the exact same thing.
Note, please, the denial of liberties angle, and the missing equal-protection claim. Your then replied in post 398 in the following manner:
Now, would you consider it a similar violation if he put up a copy of MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech, while at the same time refusing a request to put up an address by George Washington? Does he have to accept every request for a display that someone wants to put up, no matter how irrelevant it is to the historical foundation of the country's laws?
My response, in post 455:
When his avowed intention is to celebrate his religious beliefs about what he sees as the moral foundation of the law, there's really no need to discuss things like the historical foundation of the law. Nevertheless, if he had wanted a display about the historical foundation of the law, he could easily do what has been done at the Supreme Court building, and display a variety of lawgivers from the ages, both secular and religious.
Your post 469, in reply:
Alas, we've wandered into hypothetical-land now.And that's supposed to be some kind of effective counterpoint? Whenever you lay down a principle, you should be expected to be able to apply that principle to different situations. Otherwise, it ain't much of a principle, now is it? Would you care now to answer my questions?
Me again, in post 473:
A historical display does not implicate the First Amendment Establishment Clause, does it? Not to mention that the courts do not now, nor have they ever issued advisory opinions about what might happen in some hypothetical situation - all they can do is deal with the facts arrayed before them. Facts which, in this particular case, are clear as to what the intent of Moore was...
And then the post where the equal-protection issue is actually raised. Your post, #498:
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.
My immediate response, in post 516:
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.
And finally, we arrive at the source of confusion, your post 550, which I have italicized for convenience:
"Settled" does not mean accurate. If it did, you wouldn't be talking about the equal-protection clause, because that's not what the court invoked. They invoked the due-process clause (which of course is even more ridiculous - he deprived someone of "life, liberty, or property without due process of law"?).
I wouldn't be talking about equal-protection? Friend, I never was talking about equal-protection - you were, all along. You brought it up, and you have been attempting to knock it back down. I agree with you, for crying out loud - there is no equal-protection implication in this thing. It's all about the establishment clause, and whether or not the 14'th applies it to the states.
Now, I've dealt with you often enough to just chalk this all up to a massive misunderstanding, rather than a deliberate attempt to impute to me positions that I don't actually hold. I think you're way better than that, personally, and to contemplate that you might do such a thing purposefully does not comport with what I happen to think of you as a poster and as a person.
So, why don't we just scratch everything up to this point, and stake out our positions here more clearly, so that we can avoid this sort of thing as we go forward?