What happened here is that the pharmacist refused to fill a prescription. After the fact, the governor then passed a decree that compels other pharmacists facing similar situations to act differently than this pharmacist did. So the question is not whether the pharmacist should have obeyed the governor's decree given that the decree did not exist when the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription. The question is whether what the governor has done in issuing the decree is the right thing to do. In my opinion it isn't. You think the opposite. It seems to me that that is the main issue, but you keep retreating to the argument that 'we must do what we are told if we are licensed by the gov't.' To me that argument just avoids the issue.
I think that pharmacists should be recquired fill out prescriptions given by doctors--at least under the system we have now, in which this is the way citizens obtain their prescribed medicine.