I don’t understand the distinction you are making here. Why would it be insane to publish refutations? In this case, they refused to even review the refutation.
It's not at all insane to publish refutations. A really good refutation of a long-accepted result is great science, and this kind of thing makes news and runs in major journals all the time.
It's insane to demand that Science publish a refutation of anything they happened to run in the past just because your results (or, let's be honest here, your personal politics) disagree. Most refutations, too, are bad science!
The demand seems to be that "If Science ran an article they're obligated to publish anyone's refutation of that article". And that's insane. It only seems sane to you because your political outrage glands demand justice for someone using the previous study as spin, but that's not Science's problem, and it shouldn't be. Go run the outrage pieces on Slate, that's what it's for.
I did not get the sense that the refutation was seriously considered, and my impression is that the original article has not been retracted in any way, correct? So Science's public stance could be seen as the original article is still the best truth they've published on the topic, which feels wrong.
Wiggle room may be appropriate if the article is already retracted or has already been refuted.
But what is up with this "moral obligation" nonsense? Being wrong isn't "immoral", it's just a mistake.
You're trying to apply ideas of politics and rhetoric to argue that Science somehow "advocated" for a result that made democrats look good and republicans look bad, and that they're now "obligated" to make democrats look bad too. And that's wrong. Like I said if you want political argument fodder go to Slate (or, sadly, HN). That's not what Science does.
Being wrong is not immoral. Being wrong, telling bunches of people the wrong information, and then making no effort to fix your mistake once you have the chance is at least dubious on my personal moral spectrum.