And that’s not even going into your tying this event to the White House.

Walgreens or any pharmacy or pharmacists has the right to refuse any customer as with any other business has the same right. PP and NOW only believe in choice when it suits their purposes and always villify those that disagree with them just as a government in central Europe did seventy years ago. PP and NOW only want to continue the mass killings they so proudly tout as “a choice”. Well their choices have killed more humans than all the combined socialists governments, i.e. Nazis and Communists and Islamists, have. What should be protested and aborted is NOW and PP!

In an extreme case, possibly, but not likely. I know alot of Christians that have no problem with dispensing whatever because it is their job. But.. most people do not understand that if a person DOES believe it is wrong, then to do it is a sin, which is in effect denying Christ. A Christian cannot be a Christian at church and something else at work. So, are you saying that Christians can’t be Pharmacists? How about Christians can’t be Doctors because they won’t perform abortions? The can’t be bankers because they might not lend money to a porn shop? Where does it end? Where is the “tolerance” that non-Christians constantly stand on and use against Christians every day?What I think should happen is if someone requests a prescription that the pharmacist will not fill, it is his/her responsibility to quietly pass it on to someone who will. If there is noone in that pharmacy that will fill it, that fact should be publicly posted in advance and there should be a reference to a pharmacy that will fill it.

Think on the path that you are suggesting. It could beatruly bad “slippery slope”

Now Jed gave us a good example uthread. I’ll give you some more.

Now I don’t think it unreasonable to suggest that the religious right has a great deal of power in vast areas of America. It is not unreasonable to speculate that they might use that, and their general control of commerce to enforce their own ideology on others. We might imagine a concerted effort to gain control at the pharmaceutical and management levels. A woman needing Emergency Contraception might eventually have to search very far and very wide and thus be unable to secure the script while she can still safely and successfully use it.

But that is just the beginning. It is a great thing that we have religious freedom……or freedom from religion. But “defense of the right to individual religious conviction” could mushroom into a tremendous problem since indivdual religious conviction is a very subjective thing.

What if I was an atheist pharmacist and a KNOWN evangelist came to me for a script? MIght I be justified in refusing to fill that script and telling the person seeking it “My religion is science. But you trust God over science. Go and seek your Lord to heal you. I will be intersted to see the results and if your faith prevails in the absence of my interference”?

Viva La Raza Blanco!!

Damoon- Because it happens, and not just a couple times or only in Kansas, it matters. Your analogy of something you haven’t seen in pointless. It would be nice for everyone to take your approach and not put themselves in a position to have to do it. Some fanatics go into places where they can have a “positive” influence by keeping such things from happening.

If you force him to compromise his beliefs then you are forcing YOUR morality on HIM. In a court of law, you lose!

Just ask for a manager or change pharmacies. Simple enough….

This discussion isn’t about consnensual sex without protection.

Damoon,Maybe he had a right to deny her perscription, but he had NO right to not notify management.

Well, on the one hand, on every job I’ve had, I have been forced to compromise my own beliefs in many and various ways under pain of termination. So a worker rights arguement leads me to support this pharmacist.

On the other hand, the beliefs I was forced to compromise…….while critical to me and even to what I saw as public justiuce or even safety, were not something I could ascribe to “divine assignment”. So that makes me wonder why he sould be any better protected than I was.

Now I could delve further into this, worker rights vs employee accountability and the greater sad regard for the latter as opposed to the former that we currently have……..but really why bother?!

If you choose a field that is regulated by government regulations…….such as Pharmacy. Then you must adhere to those regulations. The morning after pill is legal. If you have a problem with this, then you have chosen your field of work poorly. YOu are free to act in what you see as a moral direction to change the laws that govern this. You are not free to place your own particular religious judgements over the laws and regulations that you chose to work under by way of using your position to substitute your “morality” for the law.

We have some pharmacists that are wanna be preachers. This should be THEIR PROBLEM. It should be up to them to find a place in theology or the church. It should not be incumbent on members of society to be victimized or judged to the standards of someone who has chosen the wrong vocation…..or worse, used their vocation to promote their own prejudice.

That is not what this is about.