"A pharmacist working for another party as appears to be the case here can fill the prescriptions presented of be subject to firing. One working for himself is not. A physician working for another has the same options.
Those employed by others do not have the freedoms those working for themselves do.
Interesting that you do care for the self-proclaimed "rights" of the patients but support those of this pharmacist. Looks like some "rights" are more equal than others."
The patient has the right to go to another Pharmacist. That is an important right, and she should freely exercise it. The patient does NOT have the right to demand a service that is in direct conflict with the moral beliefs of the Pharmacist. If the Pharmacist believes that "morning after pills" murders an unborn child, any attempt to compel him to violate that belief is monstrous. It is doubtful that the owner of a Pharmacy employing that Health Professional would act in any way to compel the Pharmacist to violate that belief. It is far more likely that the employer would likewise recognize that there are rules of decency in regards to treatment of people in your employ, and one of those rules would certainly be to refrain from a any vain attempt to force someone to violate their religious beliefs. But I suppose it might be conceivable, however unlikely, that an employer may issue an ultimatum to said Pharmacist threatening termination of employment over the issue. As in other posts, what a great test case this would be for Right to Life organizations to support! I can foresee even the ACLU [which I despise] showing interest in any issue of someone being terminated over their religion. I cannot believe that an employer would risk the publicity and expense of pushing the issue. No way.
The pharmacist also has the right to find another employer, or chose not to work for said employer, if they know this employer sells the products in question. If accomodations are to be made on the business end, then the business in question can have another pharmacist fill the order. The question I just though of involves the pharmacy itself. Does the pharmacy stock the drugs in question and does the pharmacist have to request the stock from distribution? If the pharmacist stocked it, then why not dispense it? Or if the company provides it through a computerized inventory system, then why not refuse delivery of the products? Or is this an attempt to get some media attention on an issue the pharmacists feels strongly about? It sounds like a pharmacist that wants to pontificate to patients.
If someone's moral belief prevents them from doing their jobs then they should get another one.
I wish someone would make an attempt to take this to court as there is no doubt that it will be thrown out as fast as you can say "jack robinson"
Presumably you filed "Friend of the Court" briefs supporting the Muslim in Florida whose "moral belief" was that she could take her driver's license photo in a burka.