Santeria is a faith that originated in Cuba. And a substantial part of Santeria tradition involves the ritual slaughter of animals.

In the late 1980s, in an effort to keep the Santerias from building a church, school and cultural center in the city of Hialeah in South Florida, the city council banned the ceremonial killing of animals -- even if humanely done.

Essentially, the city said that you could kill an animal as long as you didn't pray over it in the process.

This was blatant religious bigotry -- and so agreed the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Although the practice of animal sacrifice may seem abhorrent to some, 'religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection,'" Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court.

Wednesday, the high court heard another case that reeked of religious animus toward a small, outsider church.

The Summum religion was founded in 1975 in Utah. The sect meets in a large pyramid it built in Salt Lake City and practices the rites of "mummification and transference."

The religion has a New Age flavor but it also claims ancient roots. The Summum believe that Moses actually received two sets of tablets on Mount Sinai, the first being the Seven Aphorisms, described as "principles underlying Creation and all of nature."

When the Summum tried to donate an Aphorisms monument to Pleasant Grove, Utah, to have it sit beside the granite Ten Commandments monument in a local park, the city rejected it.

The justices were asked whether this refusal constituted a violation of the Constitution's free speech clause.

The Summum claim that because freedom of speech is protected in public parks, accepting a display from one religion opens the door to all comers.

My guess is that the court is not going to embrace this position. Judging from the oral argument I think the court will equate the city's park to a public sculpture or history display, where the government can pick and choose which structures to allow.

But this begs the question of the outright hostility the city expressed toward this small religion. Should a city really be allowed to prefer one religion over another? Doesn't the Constitution's Establishment Clause protect us from religious intolerance?

It should, of course. When members of the Summum church pass by the Ten Commandments in the park, they will know that their views are not welcome there. But in a 2005 decision, the high court seemed to OK this kind of discrimination.

Ruling 5-to-4, the Supreme Court permitted a Ten Commandments monument to remain on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol in Austin. Justice Stephen Breyer, the swing vote, justified it by saying that the monument had been there 40 years and was part of a broader display of cultural heritage.

Or in more stark terms: the majority gets to promote its religion through government as long as it's dressed up to appear as history.

In the Summum case, the Establishment Clause issue is not before the court, but if it were I'd worry about how the court would rule. The current majority doesn't seem much concerned about the rights of those who worship differently.