The lack of a rule is fundamentally different than a rule in this way.

I already addressed this point in a different comment. I'll copypaste to save you the effort. It would be based on religious views, namely that there is no God so why should this Friday be any different from another?, so would count as the application of religious beliefs. Another example would be the teaching of creationism in schools. There was no law requiring it but it still amounted to the enforcement of religious rules over others.

That's why we have representative democracy and constitutions. These people "much smarter than us" realized that minorities have to be protected from the majority.

I know. I then went on to use that exact point in my argument.

It's probably worth pointing out here that the laws for Easter would never stand a chance of being passed today.

In the UK, it's part of the 2003 Licensing Act.

Only according to one religion. In order to use this argument the state must be religious, which is flat-out illegal in most democracies.

You've completely missed the point. It's like you were cherry picking rather than reading the whole comment. My point was we, as people who had no input to the law, cannot know the reasoning behind it except when it is explicitly stated. It had nothing to do with what actually caused the law.

They don't have to cite religion in their reasoning. If they do, then they should be laughed at and ignored.

The US Constitution cites God in their reasoning. Should that be ignored?

You don't even have to stop drinking
unable to go out for a drink with my friends because it's Good Friday
It seems that this is flat-out wrong.

You can drink at home as I've said multiple times.It's not a ban on drinking, it's a ban on the sale of alcohol for that day.