Ah the Nazi argument. Pure Codswallop.
Nice counter-argument. If a pharmacist refuses to fill a lawful prescription, their employer has the right to fire them. If the pharmacist owns the store, or the owner agrees with the pharmacist's actions, then the customer has the right to go elsewhere.
To blindly require that all pharmacists leave their consciences and/or religious values behind at the door of the pharmacy is wrong, especially using the power of government to enforce it. Characterizing the more extreme Aushwitz example as "codswallop" doesn't eliminate the similarities.
To use a less extreme example, consider the time when doctors are allowed to prescribe fatal doses of certain medications for patients who wish to practice voluntary euthanasia. Should the pharmacist be allowed to opt out of helping the patient kill themselves?
For a more common, current-day example, should pharmacists be allowed to challenge a prescription when their computer records indicates a dangerous interaction with other meds may occur? Isn't that interfering with the doctor-patient relationship?