The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly in One Article

The good, the bad, and the ugly has been encapsulated in one article. The good is the top half , the article itself: another state is recognizing the need for the protection of religious liberty. Hence, its legislature, which is for now dominated by members of the only party which retains or feigns some sanity in the culture wars, has passed a law which allows religiously-run institutions (think Catholic Charities) to obey their collective consciences (not to mention religious doctrines) when placing children for adoption.

The ugly, which is ginning up for the bad, is in the bottom half of the article on the internet. You see, allowing free conscience exercise must simply not be allowed. Here there is a soft-target, in appearance at least: the entities in question accept state monies to provide a service to the state. Said entities would happily do the service for free, I'm, sure, if not for a byzantine set of social, economic, and legal rules which make their operation quite costly, indeed more costly than would be if the state were completely uninvolved.

The bad is that this provision will likely not stand: for it to do so, a large number of politicians must exhibit one of those traits which the class generally lacks, which is the courage of conviction. The ugly, as seen in the bottom half of the internet, is that the result will be the explicit removal of these protections, plus a strong public backlash against anyone who supports them.