Did the California Supreme Court have a duty to protect petitioners' individual constitutional rights for a claim of discrimination on how the association affected the actions of others

Question Presented: Did the California Supreme Court have a duty to protect petitioners’ individual constitutional rights for a claim of discrimination on how the association, by definition, affected the actions of others given that the court knew the association ; affected petitioners as individuals differently by definition? ii The U.S. Constitution states only one command twice and it may be found in the Fifth Amendment which states to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." It may also be found in the Fourteenth Amendment which was ratified in 1868 to contain the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. The prejudice in this petition, is not the application of the law according to the “rule of law” and it is contrary to a state court’s obligation under the Constitution to uphold religious neutrality when adjudicating a case reemphasized in Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Craig, Mullins 16-111, 2017, Justice Kennedy opinioned: “The delicate question of when the free exercise of religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the state itself would not be a factor in the balance the state sought to reach,” Kennedy says. "That requirement, however, was not met here. When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires." ili ; The Second Question Presented: Petitioners, both of whom are insular and discrete minorities, ask under this court’s proclaimed duty to oversee its lower courts under uniformity, did the California Supreme Court violate petitioners’ Fourteenth Amendment Right of Equal Protection and Due Process when they summarily denied and rejected review of the dismissal of petitioners’ appeal and discoveries : that they had rejected petitioners’ association while knowing their claim of discrimination had merit and had been denied filing and adjudication in the trial court?