Pharmacist Persecution?

Heard something briefly that seemed to suggest that Illinois is either considering or has already passed a law forcing pharmacists to dispense abortion drugs. Yes, it's an abortion drug - I think we should call things what they are rather than use euphemisms.

The issue got me thinking. I don't know any specifics about such a law, or even whether it's being seriously considered or already in force in Illinois. But if such a law exists, I have to assume it will and should be challenged to the Supreme Court, as it's clearly unconstitutional.

To me, a pharmacy should have every right to sell or not sell whatever drugs they please. Refusing to dispense an abortion pill because of moral objection to me is no different from refusing to sell tobacco products because they cause cancer or Yoo-Hoo drinks because they are fattening. If you want that stuff, you're just going to have to go somewhere else that will happily take your money.

Taking it to the next level, what if a pharmacy that does sell abortion pills has a pharmacist employee with a moral objection? Would firing that pharmacist for refusing to fill prescriptions of the abortifacient fairly represent religious persecution?

Maybe, maybe not.

Here's one example where I would think the firing of a pharmacist refusing to fill such prescriptions might be justified:

During the hiring process, the pharmacy owner or manager was clear with the pharmacist employee on the fact that this pharmacy dispenses abortion pills. As such, they understand that some pharmacists may have a moral problem with providing the means to an abortion to any customer. Therefore, in the interest of full disclosure, they tell the new pharmacist that it is their company's policy that no prescriptions may be refused except under specific circumstances such as suspicion of fraud, etc.

Under this scenario, the new pharmacist agrees to the terms of employment, then begins refusing to fill abortion pill prescriptions. I'd say it's OK to fire the pharmacist in this situation, because he or she knowingly accepted the position and confirmed that they understood the conditions of employment included dispensing drugs they might find morally offensive.

It would be no different from a retail store with their biggest sales day on Saturday that could not hire or keep a seventh day adventist or observant jew who cannot disobey their religious admonition against working on the Sabbath. Or the restaurant that's biggest day is Sunday, which would not be able to hire or keep wait staff that cannot work Sunday because of their deeply held Christian values. The employer has a choice to either hire someone and accept the fact of one day a week they will not work, or the employee has the choice to take the job and work on the Sabbath or find a job that does not include that requirement.

But other scenarios seem somewhat less clear-cut. Consider an older pharmacist who has been at the same pharmacy for 20 or 30 years. When the abortion pills were approved and began to be distributed, the pharmacist went to management and explained his moral objection to this particular drug. Management at that time was understanding and agreed that they would not force the pharmacist to dispense this particular drug.

Then new management took over, whether through a merger or just turnover of management staff. And the new management has no patience for the older pharmacist, telling him he will dispense the drug from now on or face termination. That I think is religious discrimination.

I suppose there could be plenty of scenarios in between my two examples. But generally, I believe there should be no laws aimed at forcing people to break their own moral laws.