Should a pharmacy owner with religious scruples be free not to stock a drug? Think before you answer [A. Barton Hinkle, Richmond Times-Dispatch on Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Ninth Circuit case of Stormans v. Wiesman; Alito dissent joined by Roberts and Thomas]
2 Comments
I really have to wonder whether these regulations are intended to just punish those with a certain viewpoint. They certainly aren’t narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. The government even stipulated that “facilitated referrals do not pose a threat to timely access” to drugs. In many cases the nearest pharmacy does that stock the drug is literally across the street.
And before anyone says “all pharmacies must stock and dispense all drugs at all times”, that is NOT the case, and would be ridiculous. They can decline to stock or dispense a drug for many reasons – one of them simply being that the drug requires extra paperwork.
If there really is a secular pharmacist stocking birth control and contraceptives across the street, I agree that reasonable accommodation should be made. If a secular pharmacy is not readily available, however, I am less sympathetic, considering the amount of money pharmacists get from taxpayers, including secular taxpayers. Many of the same people who want to obstruct birth control also oppose abortion.
If you are not willing to provide necessities to customers who do not share your religion, than you should find another line of work. (PS: I do not consider decorations on wedding cakes to be necessities.)