Am a lawyer. That's not how the equal protection clause works. The key consideration is the basis on which people are being treated differently. Quick version:
- Race = "strict scrutiny" from the Court =you need a really really really good reason to differentiate on this basis = law will almost certainly fail (caveat unless its interning Japanese-Americans during WWII)
- Sex = "intermediate scrutiny" = you need a really good basis
- Everything else = rational basis = if the government can come up with some explanation for the differentiation it is good to go = very very hard to fail the rational basis test (if the judge is applying it appropriately).
Economic. The State/City benefits economically from GSW/Nets/Knicks hosting games within its jurisdiction. The jurisdiction had concerns that a mandate imposed on visiting teams would be so disruptive, the league would require the team to play elsewhere and result in the loss of that revenue.
Safety/risk. Yes it would be better if everyone is a vaccinated. But mandates come with costs (see above), we made the judgement that given those tradeoffs, we would require vaccination of home players because they are in the arena far more frequently and hence present a greater risk of transmission within our community. In other words, Andrew Wiggins is a greater threat to San Francisco in the 42 games, plus (practices, appearances etc.) he will be inside Oracle, than is Kyrie for the one game he plays there.
