Mother Jones has selected what they think are The 8 Best Lines From Ginsburg’s Dissent on the Hobby Lobby Contraception Decision. Here is an example of one of the 8.

“Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the [Constitution’s] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.”

If it is against your religious principles to hire someone who is not of the same religion, has the Supreme Court just given you the right to discriminate?

This is only one example of self-contradiction in the U.S. Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Or maybe not. This only says that Congress may not do it. Was the original intent that only the Supreme Court could establish religion and choose the ones that would be established? Otherwise, how can you make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion without establishing what a religion is. Establishment must have the meaning I am attributing to it in this context, because the other meaning would not make any sense. Try the following substitution of words to see the problem – “Congress shall make no law respecting a church, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” How do you exercise a church?

Thanks to Jennifer Kaplan’s Facebook post for bringing the Mother Jones article to my attention.