My criticism of the article is not based on a false assumption that religious discrimination is impossible, but rather that the author fails to offer a plausible, evidence-based case that such discrimination is actually happening to him.
Failing to open an office in Louisiana is not evidence of religious discrimination. Obviously we can't know exactly how his conversation with the VP actually went, but I find the lack of detail to be conspicuous.
Are you not moving the bar higher, from just an example, to now evidence? I am for high standards, it is just dangerous that, in the current culture, they are not the same for all.
Failing to open an office in Louisiana is not evidence of religious discrimination. Obviously we can't know exactly how his conversation with the VP actually went, but I find the lack of detail to be conspicuous.