Question

In your article https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%AA-%D7%97%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94#_ftn6, regarding causing a secular Jew to sin, you based your argument on the fact that the secular Jew is like a "captured infant," and that his sin is only one of lack of knowledge, and you concluded as follows: "We proposed a halakhic direction according to which causing a non-believing Jew to commit a transgression does not involve "do not place a stumbling block." The basis of the argument is not in the parameters of "do not place a stumbling block," but rather in the fact that such a Jew is not, in general, a person subject to transgression at all. The main reasons lie in the conception of that Jew's ability to perform acts with religious significance, and also in the fact that what creates liability in unintentional transgressions is the lack of awareness, not the act itself. These ideas are indeed novel, but it seems that intuitive reasoning tends in their favor. Let the reader consider and judge."

My question is: according to that assessment, is there room to let a secular Jew who has the status of a captured infant commit transgressions in your place, somewhat like a Sabbath non-Jew? That is, if there is some real-life situation that requires violating the Sabbath, is there any preference to have a secular Jew do it? (All this, of course, is only in ex post facto situations, because if it is from the outset, then there is no question.)