How, exactly, do they justify this but not a cross on public land?
Kary Moss, director of the Detroit branch of the ACLU, said its review concluded the plan is a “reasonable accommodation” to resolve “safety and cleanliness issues” that arose when Muslims used public sinks for foot cleaning before prayers, which often spilled water on bathroom floors.
“We view it as an attempt to deal with a problem, not an attempt to make it easier for Muslims to pray,” said Moss, who likened the plan to paying for added police during religious events with huge turnouts. “There’s no intent to promote religion.”
Ah, I get it. So if a cross is just an "architectural adornment", with "no intent to promote religion", then it would be acceptable to the ACLU? Of course it would.