The case was prepared by second-year law student Claire Splawn under the supervision of clinic solicitor Sheona York.
Ms Splawn said: "We argued that an atheist should be entitled to protection from persecution on the grounds of their belief in the same way as a religious person is protected."
Bold mine. B+
the outcome and the message is clear even if you don't agree with the wording i.e. Non belief is as valid as belief and persecution on the basis of non belief is simply not allowed.