If you don't wish to answer the questions I've asked, I'll simply lay it on the line.
Courts, as I've said, routinely engage in the practice of examining the possible ramifications of a particular decision, as you've just done at #600. Therefore, it's a valid exercise in constitutional interpretation. They've also acknowledged, correctly, that decisions need to be based on rational principles that apply in circumstances which may not have happened yet.
I agree with your statement at #600 that government should not be interfering with the marketplace of ideas, and I trust you can agree that that principle should apply whether the ideas in question are religious or secular in nature (if you don't agree, then we're at a dead end). The question remaining is whether or not Moore's monument has that effect. The way to consider that question in its proper light is to look at it from different possible angles, such as what our reaction would be if it had been a secular monument placed in the exclusion of other secular displays. Would we still be liable to conclude that this constitutes a violation of the principle of non-interference in the marketplace of ideas? The answer to the one depends entirely on the answer to the other.
For some reason, which you haven't explained, you reject the attempt to look at the issue from the other angle I described. The closest you gave to a reason is that the alternate scenario hasn't happened. I don't see why that should matter. Our human intelligence has the ability to look at a situation before it happens, and inquire whether it's a good or a bad situation. We can hardly survive as humans without that ability, and there is simply no rational reason to avoid making use of it.
Actually, I've already addressed it, but I'll put it point-blank for you: there is no such right in the 14'th Amendment that you infer ought to exist, for one very simple reason. Namely, the 14'th Amendment extends the protections of the Bill of Rights by restricting how states may act, and there is no protection from interference in secular ideas within the Bill of Rights that is akin to the First Amendment protection for freedom from interference with religious expression. None. You seems to be implying that such a thing ought logically to exist, but there is absolutely no support for such a notion anywhere in the Constitution, equal protection claims notwithstanding. And despite your apparent advocacy of such a thing, I know you are quite clever enough to recognize that if such a thing as you propose were invented out of whole cloth, it would render the implementation of any sort of public policy impossible, composed of competing secular ideas as they are. And I mean any public policy - it would no longer be possible for politicians to implement their preferred policies if such a thing were to come to pass.
Courts, you say, ought to base their decisions in "rational principles" and evaluate their impact in future situations. I agree. Unfortunately, you have yet to stumble upon a rational principle which you seek to extend - this equal-protection for secular ideas thing ain't it, I assure you, based as it is on no text within the Constitution, no ideas of the founders. Nothing, it appears, at all, save your desire to invent consequences that will act to preserve Judge Moore's illegal and unconstitutional advancement of his own religion at the expense of others.
You asked for direct - you have it, my friend. I respect the heck out of you, but this line of reasoning you are developing is neither tenable, supportable, historical, or Constitutional. 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?