Even so, The part that bothers me is that there probably wasn't atheists walking up to the owner and saying, "Look, I don't believe in God. So, instead of praying, can I do [insert literally anything here, like meditate, or say something nice to someone, etc.]" because the aim of the restaurant was not to discriminate (I can only assume, as they said it wasn't) but to just spread some niceness around.
I'm saying people don't actively try to solve problems anymore. They want to throw the book and go all out, or cower and run away defeated immediately. I doubt that these owners were some wretched Christian frowny-faced assholes that said, "Atheists just don't get a discount. Sorry bub." I mean, maybe they were, but no where in the articles are they saying that happened. People don't even try to just solve problems anymore. They just want to sue, and throw the books at everyone, and I despise that attitude of squashing things before they become a big deal and spend fuck tons of needless time, resources, and energy on something that really and truly didn't have to end up that way at all.
Even if the owners WERE like that, they can just show them the literal passages you showed me and say, "Well, look, I tried to be nice about it, you don't like it tough. Convert it into a moment of silence at the table, or we'll be in our legal bounds to do something." I'll bet any business would end up crumpling as a result because the shit's plainly stated. Instead, there was a whole coalition effort trying to hammer down on, and look like bullies as a result, a small business owner.
The difference between proposing a BETTER solution than the current problem (like converting it to a moment of silence, where prayer or silence could be endured equally) is that you KEEP the discount open to everyone, and actually help the people around you, instead of acting like an asshole and throwing books at walls and tearing everything down because you don't like it and it's technically illegal. I don't think any of that was even suggested..