Bovine Scat. The whole purpose of the 14th amendment was to "incorporate" the first 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights against the states, along with certain other protections of individual rights containe within the main body of the constitution, the "Privelge of the Writ of Habeas Corpus" and the prohibition on Bills of Attainder and ex post facto laws. The first case the Supreme Court heard on the matter, the Slaughter House Case, they ruled that "priveleges and immunities" in the 14th amendment, meant only those that are unique attributes of National Citizenship, despite the use of the word "privelege" in the Constitution when referring to the "great writ". They furthermore relied on pre-14th amendment precedent in forming that argument (Barron vs. Baltimore for example).
Such was not the intent of the authors of the 14th, nor the understanding of both supporters and opponents in Congress, as recorded during the Congressional proceedings on the matter. The records of the Congress at that time are much more complete than those from the time the BoR was written and passed and this is not a disputable matter, although some courts have ruled that it doesn't matter what the authors intended, nor what those who voted to approve the Amendment understood, it matters what the court says the words meant. (And read the Slaughter House decision, if you want to seem some Clintonian like torturing of words. (Warning PDF file)
Horse hockey. The original purpose of the amendment was to provide citizenship for former slaves and give them full civil rights.
In my opinion, by the way, the United States v Cruikshank et al (94 U.S. 542)(1875) spells out the limitations of the 14th much better.