It’s not necessary (or permissible) to choose whether plaintiff’s known reasons for the ordinance is compelling or whether there was objective proof to help them. Whenever coping with economic legislation, any “conceivable foundation” for the category is enough to justify it. Lehnhausen v. pond coast car Parts Co., 410 U.S. 356, 364, 93 S. Ct. 1001, 35 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1973). Events challenging legislation underneath the equal security clause cannot succeed as long as “it is clear from most of the considerations delivered to [the legislature], and people of which [the court can] need judicial notice, that the real question is at debatable that is least.'” Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456, 463, 101 S. Ct. 715, 66 L. Ed. 2d 659 (1981) (quoting united states of america v. Carolene services and products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 153-54, 58 S.