Oh, so now we're arguing that the Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government and not the state or local governments? Sorry, but I'm not buying it, and I don't care much about one particular quotation from a Supreme Court ruling. The Dred Scott ruling was from the Supreme Court also.
Using this argument, a state or city so inclined could prohibit freedom of religion, freedom of speech, impose cruel and unusual punishments, etc etc. It's true that the Amendments in the Bill of Rights don't contain the phrase "the United States or any state" as do the more recently passed Amendments, but to put that forth as a serious argument is little more than sophistry and word games.
"The relevant historical materials have been canvassed by this Court and by legal scholars. These materials demonstrate conclusively that Congress and the members of the legislatures of the ratifying States did not contemplate that the Fourteenth Amendment was a short-hand incorporation of the first eight amendments making them applicable as explicit restrictions upon the States." -- U.S. Supreme Court BARTKUS v. ILLINOIS, 359 U.S. 121 (1959)