Forgive me for a post that isn't tied together by a theme. Unless it's the theme of this entire blog: What's Wrong With the World.
First, in case you haven't heard, the State Supreme Court of Washington just ruled that Barronelle Stutzman broke the law and discriminated on the basis of "sexual orientation" by refusing to give florist services to a homosexual "wedding." Washington State even has a Defense of Marriage law, but the justices said that that has nothing to do with it. She now faces possibly crushing costs, including paying the legal costs of her opponents. ADF Legal is talking about appealing to the SCOTUS. Even if Neil Gorsuch were confirmed, that doesn't tell us what SCOTUS would do, not least because the court tilted left even when Justice Scalia was alive and might very well rule along the same lines as Obergefell that it's perfectly wonderful for homosexuals and their weddings to have protected class status at the state level and, hey, while we're at it, they must have it at the federal level too. Because of the 14th amendment, of course.
If you're not reading the Babylon Bee, you should be. They make you laugh when you want to cry. Dark humor and funny, biting satire. Their satiric headline after the recent ruling: "New Registry Allows Engaged Same-Sex Couples to Decide Which Christian Florist to Put Out of Business."
I saw the ever-witty Frank Beckwith, my former blog colleague, comment on a Facebook thread: "I had been under the impression that flower arranging was an act between consenting adults."
Er, yes. But then again, with anti-discrimination ordinances in place, is anything an act between consenting adults? Pretty much any service offered to the public can be compelled under "public accommodations" laws, so...
This raises the following macabre thought experiment: If prostitution is legalized in a venue that has specially protected status for "sexual orientation," can a prostitute be fined for refusing to have sex with would-be clients of the same sex? Makes your head spin, doesn't it?
Now here's my second unrelated link:
Jennifer Roback Morse tells about a Catholic couple that was given, as they understood it, the moral go-ahead by their priest to engage in in vitro fertilization. But nobody told them, including the technicians, that "extra" embryos would be made. They were informed to their shock, after the fact, that thirteen embryos were made! They attempted implantation with three embryos, one of whom survived and is now a teenaged girl. The other ten are still frozen. The couple is now divorced. The husband is trying in agony to figure out what to do with his ten frozen children.
All because of a priest who did not teach clearly and a lab that hid vital information from them. In passing, I have to wonder how the IVF company's failure to inform properly can not be litigable. Maybe there was something about extra embryos in the fine print and they just didn't read it carefully enough? Well, hey, a widget company makes more widgets than it expects to pass quality control, so that's presumably how the lab was thinking, too. Yet more evidence that IVF is just wrong, though this poor man is more to be pitied than blamed, I think. He got bad advice all the way along.
I'm sorry to have nothing more heartening to report in this post, except that where I live it's a particularly beautiful day, astonishingly warm for February, and that evil cannot conquer forever.