Although I am as pro-life as they come, I don’t agree with this judge’s ruling (except that there is a law that she cites that sounds like it’s provides protection for this pharmacist). This is the same logic as the Muslims use when they don’t want to handle pork at a cash register due to “moral and/or religious” prohibitions. I think, though, that Wal-Mart is taking a chance at pi$$ing off its main consumer base as a lot of liberals won’t shop there anyways due to their ongoing fight with organized labor.
However, as a libertarian (with a small L), I don't believe it's an employee's right, and especially not the government's role, to tell a private employer what he will sell, or not sell. If that pharmacist doesn't want to sell that pill, then he needs to find employment at a pharmacy that refuses to carry that pill, or better yet, open his own pharmacy.
Not all Moslems refuse to handle pork. There are, for instance, more than a few current and past NFL players who are Moslems and they handled the pigskin quite readily.
The prohibition is on EATING pork, not touching it!
Although I am as pro-life as they come, I don’t agree with this judge’s ruling (except that there is a law that she cites that sounds like it’s provides protection for this pharmacist). The judge is following the law, why disagree with it?
This is the same logic as the Muslims use when they don’t want to handle pork at a cash register due to “moral and/or religious” prohibitions.
Pork is not covered by the law.