The Prudhomme's Controversy Continues

I've tried to steer clear of the recent controversy surrounding Prudhomme's policy offering a discount to anyone bringing in a church bulletin.  A follow-up comment to a Lancaster Newspapers article, however, prompted the following response from me. (The original comment can be found by clicking HERE.)

My response to the commenter:

I get the gist of your comment about lawsuits, and I understand you mean the fart remark figuratively, but your comment about starting one's own restaurant and giving a discount for atheists misses the point entirely.  Prudhomme's policy is not that its customers have to be believers to get the discount; they just need to present a church (and I assume synagogue or mosque) bulletin.  Why then would you counter as you did, since the argument is not about believers vs atheists? 

In addition, your offhand criticism of Columbia is not well thought out or clearly stated.  What “mentality” are you referring to?  Your comment seems to support Prudhomme's, so it can't be referring to that.  If it's about the controversy itself, then remember that the lawsuit was brought by a man from Manheim Township.  Possibly you are referring to your own mentality that tells you Columbia has a bad name.  If so, I'd like you to expand upon that thought, and tell me what bad name Columbia has and how you think it has earned it.  In addition, since it appears you live in Willow Street, please tell us how and what you know about Columbia, i.e., verifiable facts and first-hand information, not rumors or gut feelings.  As a lifelong Columbian, I find your assertion offensive.

Your comment ends with an incongruous twist on an old adage.  Why would someone be free to throw stones only after their own windows are clean?  But if one accepts the logic of your statement, then it follows that you must have just spent time with a bottle of window cleaner before you submitted your comment.