When did a pharmacist's religion become his employer's responsibility? Face it, if this issue involved ANYTHING but women's reproductive freedom, there would be no debate whatsoever. Let's say I'm a Muslim and my religion forbids consumption of alcohol. Could I get hired as a waitress or bartender, but insist somebody else would have to serve the alcohol? If I were a Mormon and couldn't drink coffee, could I get a job at Starbuck's but insist that any customer who wanted coffee had to wait for someone else to serve them? If I'm an orthodox Jew, would it be reasonable for me to demand the right to work at a strip club, and insist on being allowed to remain covered from head to toe? Let's face it: if you have religious objections to a job, it should be your responsibility to find another line of work.

I'd be willing to bet that the only time an employee is entitled to "demand" the right not to do his or her job, is when the employee's job involves allowing women access to contraception and/or abortion. I can't think of any other instance in which an employee can simply refuse to perform the job for which he was hired, and claim religious discrimination if the employer penalizes him.

It's interesting that the only time these fundicrats seem to be concerned with their work & religion is when a woman requires birth control.

I'd be interested in finding out his postion on dispensing Viagra to unmarried men.

I think, maybe, this guy needs to find a new line of work. Clearly his beliefs are getting in the way of doing his job effectively.

This isn't so much like a Muslim bartender refusing to serve alcohol, since there are so many thousands of other kinds of prescriptions a pharmacist could actually fill. This is more like an Orthodox Jewish butcher refusing to serve pork.

That said, an Orthodox Jewish butcher would probably be working at a kosher shop. If these guys don't want to sell birth control, why don't they just start their own pharmacies and run it however they want. Those of us who aren't interested in supporting their cause can get our prescriptions filled elsewhere.

That probably means those people won't be getting jobs at all those small town Wal-Marts, but you don't hear kosher butchers whining about their job prospects needing protection from being geographically limited.

Doesn't refusing to provide something to a person who is not forbidden to use/eat/wear it according to THEIR religious beliefs (or lack thereof) count as religious discrimination since you are attempting to force them to subscribe to your own?

How hard would it have been for the guy to get another pharmacist with NO CONFLICTING BELIEFS ABOUT DOING HIS GODDAMN JOB to help the customers?

Oh yeah, because then the smug, self-righteous, passive-aggressive prick wouldn't have been able to get off on rubbing a woman's face in her 'immoral behaviour'.

So what about Viagra? I'd be interested in finding out his postion on dispensing Viagra to unmarried men.

-- SharonP

And... what about married men whose wives are past childbearing age? Bottom line, the ReligiousRighteous really are opposed to all non-procreative sex.

...did he bother to determine whether any of the women were taking BCP for reasons other than conraception? Or would that have been too much personal information?

It seems to me that by saying that Wal-Mart had protected the man's religious beliefs by allowing him to transfer the scrip to another pharmacist it could be implied that the store has a duty to provide that "protection" in general. Some pharmacies are small and that wouldn't be possible, is it okay for a woman to be denied birth control in that situation? Yes, this is a victory, but I would feel better with some stronger assurance that my rights are protected from other people's religious beliefs.

When the day comes that you are no longer free to follow your conscience, remember how you slimed this pharmacist for doing just that. I say this even though I have no sympathy for his views at all.

I would like to also hear a discussion of the fact that "birth control pills" are actually prescribed for other reasons. I have friends who take them to regulate their period, or to reduce mid-cycle bleeding, or because otherwise they menstruate every two weeks! I believe there are also women who take them for mental health issues to regulate hormonal fluctuations. The no pregnancy issue becomes a side effect of the medicine.

Does the pharmacist get to read my perscription, study my medical history and make a personal (to them) moral judgement call on whether or not I get medicine prescribed by my doctor? Even better does the teenage highschool student at the register of the local Mega-lo-Mart get to read my prescription and decide whether I get to have my meds? Noone seems to mention that added side effect.

He didn't have to dispense contraceptives. But, he then interfered with the ability of the customer to have her prescription filled by another pharmacist who could fill it in good conscience. If he was totally opposed to anyone dispensing contraception, he probably shouldn't have chosen work at a pharmacy that stocked it. He was allowed to make the decision for himself, but not for other people, including his employer.

In many pharmacies the pharmacist also operates the register. Does this guy refuse to sell cigarettes? Does he refuse to sell alcohol? Does he check and see that the diabetics aren't buying chocolate bars? Or the not-so-thin ones either? A pharmacists job is the follow recipes to make pills prescribed by a doctor. They are a short-order cook not the chef.

To the guy who brought up conscience: he could have done what he was asked to do by his employer--refer the women to a different pharmacist--and still been true to his beliefs. Instead, his so-called "conscience" led him to treat these women with extreme disrespect and leave them with no care at all. That is not something a conscientious person would do.

And yes, if he fills Viagra prescriptions without checking that the man is married and with a child-bearing-age, non-contraception-using wife, then he is not being consistent to his religious beliefs. He's just being hostile to women, which, to me, seems to be the real story here.