"The government support of religion was an atavism. It would not have happened except for inertia. It will not come back."
You'll not see me cheering governmental hostility to religion. How is state enforcement of "no religion" any less odious, in your estimation, than enforcement of a state religion? Your profession of unnamed religious beliefs aside, can you not see the pitfalls inherent to this form of religious coercion as well? Irreligious societies are not immune to genocide. Active hostility to religion will draw such a thing all the closer. Think about that.
This question has historical roots unrelated to religion.
First, I support a ban on the promotion of religion by government. I am less enthusiastic about bans affecting individuals and private organizations.
But these go back to an era of government enforced segregation and government complicity in private racism. The laws against discrimination attacked a genuine evil. As with all laws, they have unintended consequences.