In a laughable argument ignoring the First Amendment, Justice Antonin Scalia made a ridiculous argument pleading for the right of clergy members.

Justice Antonin Scalia makes no secret of his religious beliefs. A staunch Roman Catholic, the 79-year old jurist in a 2013 interview admitted, “I even believe in the Devil,” and added, “heâ€™s a real person.”

The interviewer, Jennifer SeniorÂ from New York Magazine, was not hiding her shock, so Scalia was astonished.

“Youâ€™re looking at me as though Iâ€™m weird. My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the Devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the Devil! Itâ€™s in the Gospels! You travel in circles that are so,Â soÂ removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the Devil! Most of mankind has believed in the Devil, for all of history. Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the Devil.”

Fast forward to today.

During oral arguments in this morning’s same-sex marriage case before the Supreme Court, Scalia very clearly demonstrated his devotion to religion once again, while ignoring the First Amendment that so clearly protects it.

“I’m concerned about the wisdom of this Court imposing through the ConstitutionÂ­ a requirement of action which is unpalatable to many of our citizens for religious reasons,” Scalia said, clearly vocalizing his desire to protect people of faith at the expense of same-sex couples (and ignoring that people of faith can be LGBT).

LOOK:Â Justice Alito’s Gay Marriage Questions: Could It Legalize Polygamy, Did Ancient Greeks Allow It?

“They are not likely to change their view about what marriage consists of. And were the States to adopt it by law, they could make exceptions to what is required for same-Â­sex marriage, who has to honor it and so forth. But once it’s Â­Â­ it’s made a matter of constitutional law, those exceptions Â­Â­ for example, is it, is it conceivable that a minister who is authorized by the State to conduct marriage can decline to marry two men if indeed this Court holds that they have a constitutional right to marry? Is it conceivable that that would be allowed?”

(Quick answer: No.)

Mary Bonato, the attorney arguing for marriage equality, responded well, reminding him of the Constitution.

“Your Honor, of course the Constitution will continue to apply, and right to this day, no clergy is forced to marry any couple that they don’t want to marry. We have those protections.”

That was insufficient for Scalia.

“I don’t see how you could possibly allow that minister to say, ‘I will only marry a man and a woman. I will not marry two men.’ Which means you would,Â­Â­ you could,Â­Â­ you could have ministers who Â­Â­conduct real marriages that are civilly enforceable at the National Cathedral, but not at St. Matthews downtown, because that minister refuses to marry two men, and therefore, cannot be given the State power to make a real State marriage. I don’t see any answer to that. I really don’t.”

The conversation continued for a few minutes, with Justice Elena Kagan finally stepping in.

“Ms. Bonauto, maybe I’m just not understanding Justice Scalia’s question, but for example, there are many rabbis that will not conduct marriages between Jews and nonÂ­Jews, notwithstanding that we have a constitutional prohibition against religious discrimination. And those rabbis get all the powers and privileges of the State, even if they have that rule, most Â­Â­ many, many, many rabbis won’t do that.”

At that point, Justice Stephen Breyer had to step in as well, to defend Justice Kagan and Bonauto’s argument.

“It’s called Congress shall make no law respecting the freedom of religion…”

Â

Image byÂ ShawnÂ via Flickr and a CC license