Reasonable accomodation might apply if they only sometimes sell alcohol. But if drinks are always on the menu, there would be no reasonable accomodation. Or in the case where no alcohol was served at all, if the waitress gave a lecture on the evils of drink to anyone who asked for a glass of wine, she would be fired. That seems to be a more suitable analogy to the Target case. They didn't even carry the medicine in question. She could have simply stated that. That would not be the same as participating in abortion. If asked where the prescription could be filled, she could have said that she was not familiar with the policies of her company's competitors and she didn't know where it was available.
I did not get the sense that she lectured a customer.
What I read was that in December Target sent around a statement that each pharmacist, wherever he or she worked, had to sign which affirmed that he or she had no objection to dispensing such drugs. The woman wouldn't sign it, and so she was fired, even though the pharmacy at which she worked didn't carry the drug in question.
It doesn't look to me like there was any insubordination here, nor any customer complaint (maybe I missed it).
The best analogy is this: Hillary Clinton is elected Commander in Chief. She reverses Bill Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on gays in the military, with a strong policy statement that the military welcomes homosexuals, and that the military will punish anyone who discriminates against gays. She then requires all serving officers of whatever rank to sign a statement that they will support and execute her policy.
And then fires any officer who refuses to sign.
That's the apt comparison.
Exactly my point. Given the infrequency of the issue it's hard to imagine Target couldn't have accomodated her religious beliefs. Amazingly, the issue never even came up. She was fired because she refused to comply with a *hypothetical* situation.