You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
This is not about supporting or not supporting a corporation. This is about dispensing drugs which are designed to end a human life.
But I guess you see the anti-abortion/pro-life movement as just some stupid religious belief.
People who are pro-life don't want to contribute to the death of an innocent baby. Her religious views can be respected if someone else who has no objection fills the prescription. It should not be a firing offense.
No, there has to be some condition, cause, not mere personal opinion, but PROFESSION opinion, involved in what is filled and what isn't. I'd think that any pharmacist who took to referring to random drugs as offensive due to "religious" reasons who could not provide substantiation as to the religion and principles involved in those specific drugs, would be discharged for incompetence (or similar), if not lose a license.
There is recognized moral difficulty and offense associated with birth control and/or abortion-inducing medications. They are readily identifiable to most reasonably intelligent people as being capable of terminating human life, or, as some claim, "removing tissue".
I believe there'd be a strange circumstance if a Scientologist was licensed as a Pharmacist (or would they ever pursue that profession, I don't know, and doubt it) and then refused all medication orders based upon thier "religious" objections, in which I just don't know how that would be handled other than they'd face an argument with the licensing board, certainly their employer.
However, that's not the case here. This Pharmacist only objected to birth-affecting, life-terminating medications and it's not at all the same thing as if she'd just randomly named a drug or drugs with no recognition of controversy.
"" because it is against their religion to support the corporation that makes those drugs.""
Silly extrapolation. The distinction is very clear: do not infringe on the right not to be killed.