[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

No one is saying a company must hire one of these pharmacists. You are changing the argument. There is no MUST here. This is about whether or not the government can force all pharmacies and pharmacists to dispense these drugs when it violates their conscience. The MUST is on the side of the government. Can the government force people to choose between their job and their conscience? An employer can hire or not hire someone on these issues. Fine. But can (or should) the government trump them both and say "you must!"?

[crail]

No one is saying a company must hire one of these pharmacists.

But if I'm correct and employer, by law, can't ask about moral/religious issues in a job interview. That makes it difficult to not hire someone who will then refuse to do part of what he was hired to do. I think this issue is really about those who object to RU-486, but RU-486 is legal for now, and objections to that should go through legislature. That would have the effect of *every* pharmacist not selling it. People who won't do what they were hired to do should be dealt with the same way as always.

[Semper]

This is about whether or not the government can force all pharmacies and pharmacists to dispense these drugs when it violates their conscience.

The government determines the parameters of the pharmacists' job and issues a license. If the parameters of that job allowed individuals to determine which medicines they would dispense and which they would not, that would create chaos. If someone has a problem with dispensing any particular medicine, they should get a different job. That is why Christian Scientists are not pharmacists (they do not use medicines). But, are you saying that if a Christian Scientist wanted to be a pharmacist, they could get paid for not dispensing any medicine?