Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of its message is presumed to be unconstitutional.... When the government targets not subject matter but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant. Viewpoint discrimination is thus an egregious form of content discrimination. The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction. Id. at-, 115 S.Ct. at 2516 (citations omitted). 12 . The district court and the Building Authority rely on Lubavitch Chabad House, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 917 F.2d 341 (7th Cir.1990), as relevant authority. This reliance is misplaced; the legal d.2d 897 (1992); Kaplan v. City of Burlington, 891 F.2d 1024, 1030 (2d Cir.1989) , cert. denied, 496 U.S. 926, 110 S.Ct. 2619,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that display of unattended menorah in city hall park quite close to seat of government violated establishment clause because its combination alongside a secular holiday display did not cause a viewer to see the exhibit as a whole or as a unitary symbol
B. holding that display of solitary semipermanent menorah in city hall park closely associated with seat of city government violates the establishment clause
C. holding that rluipa violates establishment clause
D. holding there was no establishment clause violation in displaying a privately funded menorah during chanukah in the public plaza on which city hall and county building are located
E. holding that a city owned creche and christmas tree erected in a public park adjacent to another park with a christmas tree lights and a privately owned menorah did not offend the establishment clause
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.