The accommodationist argument being made so far is rather absurd. It goes:

1. The removal (not destruction) of a religious monument on public state owned land is petty and unimportant.

2. The monument is so historically important that it transcends constitutional laws.

3. I am a passionate secularist.

So which is it? Is it unimportant and insignificant or is it sacred and holy? It can't be both. How do you support the idea that you're a passionate secularist while not supporting the separation of church and state?

I conclude you're not secularists, and your arguments are absurd, based on gross misunderstanding about secularism, and an emotional attachment to religious objects which are above secular laws.

When it comes to important historical sites (A fire station car park is debatable) then there is a simple solution called a public trust, where such sites are protected but not functional properties of the state. The other solution--move it to private land.