Your quotation is unattributed and is therefore as meaningful as any unattributed quotation. In short it could be from some academic institution or some blowhard down the pub.
Even if it is from a reputable organisation the wording acknowledges that there are historians who doubt that Jesus existed as a historical figure.
You don't seem to understand what bigotry is, it's all about discriminating against people because of factors they cannot control. CI has not discriminated against you at all, he's merely questioned the existence of a semi mythical figure.
Personally I think there was a historical figure(s), but there's no real hard evidence that he existed, and if he did exist he was very different from the character that exists in scripture, or even an amalgam.
Luke was very good at shoe ironing Biblical prophecies into his gospel regardless of whether or not there was any truth to it. The nativity and census being prime examples.
There are major difficulties in accepting Luke's account: the gospel links the birth of Jesus to the reign of Herod the Great (Luke 1:5: "In the days of King Herod of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah..."), but the census took place in 6 CE, nine years after Herod's death in 4 BCE; there was no single census of the entire empire under Augustus; no Roman census required people to travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors; and the census of Judea would not have affected Joseph and his family, living in Galilee.