Reason for No Graduation Ceremony in Church

I have posted before about the recent ruling that a high school in Enfield, Connecticut, that was prohibited by a court from holding their graduation ceremony in a church building. I mentioned that the reason they wanted the ceremony there was that is cost a fraction of comparable facilities that were nearby and non-religious. It is an air-conditioned facility with large-screen monitors so everyone can see his/her graduate accepting the diploma. Nice, but not allowed according to this court. I think that is none of the court's business if they are claiming a constitutional justification - I don't think there is one. However, I now find the wording from District Court Judge Janet Hall's ruling and it was illuminating:

“Enfield schools sends the message that it is closely linked with First Cathedral and its religious mission, that it favors the religious over the irreligious and that it prefers Christians over those that subscribe to other faiths, or no faith at all.”

Really? Renting this building is supporting the church's mission? Renting this facility for 20% of the price of a local civic auditorium is saying the school prefers religion of the lack of religion? Would that mean that renting the civic center is saying that the school prefers no religion over religion, especially when one is willing to pay much more to do so?

Read more discussion here:
The etymology of church