I would consider it favoritism if they were only trying to accommodate the special needs of a certain group, here the religious Jews, perhaps out of deference t

I would consider it favoritism if they were only trying to accommodate the special needs of a certain group, here the religious Jews, perhaps out of deference to religion… which seems to be a point of concern of the op since he goes on about his atheism. I wouldn’t consider it favoritism if a general rule applied to which groups get special treatment, provided the rule itself did not show favoritism a priori and had reasonable motivation. A la “we want to accommodate as many people as possible but it’s too costly to get a special solution for any group with fewer than X people”. So… yeah maybe you’re right and the latter applied here. In this case he followed the spirit of the law as a worthy tag along of the explicitly labeled intended recipient group.