But, there is no need to digress to name calling. I'll take your point about "a right to buy", but you seem to be intentionally missing my point.
An employee does not have a right to be employed. If they are refusing to sell the wears of a store, for moral objections, then they ought to find a different store to work at.
Inject all the moral observations and values judgments you like for justifying why you feel it is wrong to buy or sell the "morning after" pill, if doses not change the underlying argument about weather or not an employee at a store can refuse to sell a product.
When you get right down to it, yes, they have a right to do so. But, exercising that right should lead to termination of employment.
Yes, there are stores that do not sell Bibles, and they have a right not to sell them. But, if I was trying to buy a Bible at the book store and some atheist, with a face full of metal, was refusing to ring me up, I dam guarantee you I would raise hell for it.
I already asked you to read what has been written. You didn't, did you. You were in such a rush to say that I am intentionally missing the point that you don’t know you are off target by 180 degrees. I have addressed this issue, and at least one other person has addressed it better. Now blow the dust off in case you hit any big words like "right" and go read. And BTW, saying over and over again that refusing to sell a drug should lead to termination does not make it "right". (it's a synonym, look it up).
Once again, for the 3rd or 4th time, perhaps more; it is asinine to equate an atheist not selling bibles (regardless of how much facial hardware person has - and what has that got to do with it anyway?!?), or a Muslim not scanning pork, with this situation. You and others insist on banging the crap out of this one like it is a big logical drum. It's a pie plate, And it has a hole torn in it to boot!