There are plenty of mechanisms to correct what you see as faulty interpretation, beginning with seeking an appointment to the bench, and ending with amending the Constitution. Again, you are arguing how the law ought to be - the wonderful thing about the Constitution is that you are free to do that. The other wonderful thing about the Constitution is that is specifies mechanisms for resolving disputes of this nature. And those mechanisms have been invoked, and under the law as it stands, Moore is wrong.
Specifically, if displaying a religious view while excluding others (X) violates equal protection (or due process or whatever), then how can it be that displaying a secular view while excluding others (Y) does not violate equal protection? I'd appreciate the courtesy of a direct answer - or an answer of "I don't know" if you don't know. Thank you.
LOL - I do believe you're a bit testy about this ;)
The direct answer is: that's a red-herring, neither applicable or relevant to this particular case.
The indirect answer is that the whole point of freedom of expression is to enrich society and the individuals therein by the free exchange of ideas in an open marketplace, where they may succeed or fail based on their own merits, rather than the based on whether or not its proponents hold temporal civil authority over other citizens. Deliberately and systematically using the power of the state to exclude one or more points of view from that marketplace is an offense to both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. In the less abstract sense, if and when you find a case that deals with the issues you raise, regarding exclusion of secular points of view from governmental expressions, and hence captures your new-found interest in the applications of the 14'th Amendment, I will be happy to discuss the specifics of it, and render my opinion based on the fullest possible understanding of the facts thereof. I even promise not to suggest that you've suddenly accepted the value of the 14'th Amendment ;)
The bottom line here is, does Judge Moore have the right to use the power of the state to advance his beliefs over and above all others? Feel free to answer directly, if you like, but for me the answer is clear - no matter how warm and fuzzy it may make us feel to use Caesar to promote Christ, the temporary gain is not worth the long-term peril we invite. Our grasp on the levers of power is always temporary and fleeting, and I have no desire to lay the foundations for someone else whom I find even more disagreeable than hucksters who try to nail themselves to crosses for secular gain to impose their beliefs on me with the sledgehammer of the state. I have no wish to see the Constitution perverted by giving someone else the precedent to declare that Sharia is the moral foundation of the law, or Ba'al, or whatever. Moore is a wonderful stalking-horse for forces that he thinks he can control, when in fact they will simply use him to their own ends, and we will have all abandoned any pretense at rational objection when they do.
My, my, my, you wouldn't be indulging in hypotheticals, now would you? And rather fantastic* hypotheticals at that.
*And I don't mean in the sense of "awesome".