13. Equal protection.
 
    a. "'It is not per se a sufficient reason for a variation that the nonconforming use is more profitable to the landowner. (citations omitted) The converse of this would emasculate the principle of zoning, for invidious distinctions are inadmissible.'"
Coronet Homes, Inc. v. McKenzie, 84 Nev. 250, 258, 439 P.2d 219 (1968). No. 10.
 
    b. "(A) facially valid ordinance may be the vehicle for unequal protection of the law when applied in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373-74 (1886). More particularly, we have noted that '[e]qual protection of the law has long been recognized to mean that no class of persons shall be denied the same protection of the law which is enjoyed by other classes in like circumstances.' Allen v. State, 100 Nev. 130, 135, 676 P.2d 792, 795 (1984) (emphasis added)."
City of Las Vegas v. 1017 S. Main Corp., 110 Nev. 1227, 1234-1235, 885 P.2d 552 (1994). No. 42.