It is an interesting question that I think has to be approached from both a philosphical point of view and a legal one.
From a philosophical point of view, it would be what is the intent of the FAA with this reg and what philosophy is behind it? The answer to that seems clear, in that they specifically state that "the weather conditions will be at or above the authorized minimums at the estimated time of arrival at any airport to which dispatched or released..." If you take that phrase it is clear in its meaning and intent. Then your question comes from the next part of the sentence "or to any required alternate airport". I would interpret that to mean that those weather minimums would also apply to any required alternate airport. I think that you would have to take away the previous part of the sentence in order to interpret the meaning the way they want you to, and that clearly is not the case. They don't say when they are referring to the alternate airport that the miimums for the destination do not apply.
I would still go with my original interpretation.
Then there is the legal viewpoint. If someone does dispatch a flight to a destination that does not have legal minimums, using the justification that they have a good alternate, I think that the FAA would take a dim view of it and there could easily be ramifications, such as a certificate action against the individuals involved.
There are two other ways to deal with this, and that is to get an opinion directly from the FAA either from an authorized inspector, or their general counsel's office, or if you can find it, for every regulation that has been created, there is a record of what the basis and original intent of the rule was when it was created. Only the FAA would have that as far as I know, but it should be in their offices in D.C.
I hope this helps. If you need a contact for an inspector I can give you a good one.