[sittnick]

Then their focus should be the Governor.

The lawsuits have already been filed against the governor's illegal executive order. (By the way, Walgreen's is based in Illinois and a Walgreen's director is on the state run pharmacy committee.)

I find it interesting that those who support Walgreens' "right" to fire employees (in this case a professional who knows what he is doing better than most of management) but doesn't like it when folks who object to the immoral policy take their business elsewhere in an organized manner. (Osco, here I come.)

[CindyDawg]

I go to Walmarts for meds too.

[flashbunny]

"Walgreen, based in Deerfield, Ill., put the four on leave Monday, Bruce said. She would not identify them. They will remain on unpaid leave "until they either decide to abide by Illinois law or relocate to another state" without such a rule or law."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/30/health/main1087267.shtml?CMP=OTC-RSSFeed&source=RSS&attr=U.S._1087267

They were offered employment in another state in order to still have a job with walgreens AND not have to dispense these drugs.

That's why people don't like the boycott. Because calling for one is idiotic and just makes the people who are opposed to this bad law look bad by association.

[Balding_Eagle]

Isn't Walgreens a publicly traded store? If so, they have more than a 'right' to follow the law. Their first obligation is to their owners, and in accordance with that, they have an obligation to follow the law.

Consumers have every right to take their business elsewhere. Even to organize a boycott. I just think it's stupid (and wrong) to boycott the weak party (Walgreens) instead of those who could change things.