# Pharmacists and refusals **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 8, 2011, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713 "2011-04-08T20:18:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 29
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/561 "2011-04-14T19:57:08Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I think Bricker erred in conceding that there is any gender discrimination present at all. There simply isn’t. Ahem: > [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, but even if I were to concede that gender is the precise class involved here – **which I most assuredly do not** – gender discrimination is analyzed under the intermediate scrutiny standard, and race under the strict scrutiny standard. SO even then, your efforts to analogize to race fail. (emphasis added) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/562 "2011-04-14T20:02:26Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Spoken like someone who has never had to live without a car. I lived without a car, bud, for quite some time. > [@](#): > > In any case, a two hour detour after you already have made a good faith effort isn’t acceptable at all. To who? To you? Why should I care what’s acceptable to you? Do you think I plan my support for policy decisions based on what’s acceptable to you? I don’t. I don’t spend one single solitary second caring what’s acceptable to you. > [@](#): > > Pharmacists are who we as a culture use as the gateway to some medications. If one of them, based on his personal ignorant superstitions, decides you can’t have a medication he has no business acting as that gateway. Plenty of peaches need picking, if a particular pharmacist is unwilling to perform his duties he can go get another job. Let me guess. “From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need,” right? Again, your opinion. Again, I couldn’t care less. I say that we should stick to our traditional principles of personal freedom, and let pharmacists decide what they wish to serve up and what they wish to avoid. Freedom is the cornerstone of our democracy, not slavish adherence to the hive colony mind you espouse. What a lucky thing the lawmakers of this country are not swayed by your invitations to become a colony of ants. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/563 "2011-04-14T20:05:29Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Now it seems it’d be okay to discriminate against blacks as long as they could find another lunch counter 60 miles away. Or, since technically all women aren’t up for discrimination, just those who take medicines that the pharmacists don’t like, how about all discrimination against blacks is still illegal, except at lunch counters, and then only if the attendant doesn’t like something about them. I’m sure we can agree on something that the Will of The People can get behind. Say, if you’re black and you have a college degree and are all uppity like that, the attendant can refuse to serve you food. > > Yes? > Is this a cause we can get behind, no food for educated blacks, or just no medicine for women who don’t abide by your religious views? > Maybe food is not okay, and instead we can just refuse certain prescriptions to educated blacks instead? > > Just looking for the actual principles you hold here, other than “That’s the law, nyeh nyeh!” No, you’re not. Since I have explained many times that I don’t agree this reasoning extends to race, I have no particular reason to believe your claims that you seek to understand my principles. If you did, you would have acknowledged that I agree race is an impermissible factor. Since you deliberately invoke race again, it obvious that your interest is not in any views I actually hold. How does it feel to know that (with the exception of New Jersey) state lawmakers everywhere have either ignored or explicitly rejected your lame arguments? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/564 "2011-04-14T20:13:54Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Is this your indirect way of saying that no distance would be too great? If so, then have the guts to say it direct instead of your “there’s another one a couple of blocks away!” mantra. If not, please tell me what distance _would_ be unreasonable, in your personal opinion.. You want a one-size-fits-all answer to a question that has a many variables as Campbell’s has soups. It’s a question that has to be asked with respect to a particular situation. This sort of shifts the burden on you to provide the specifics to be examined, much like the WV example that was buried previously. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/565 "2011-04-14T20:24:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Since I have explained many times that I don’t agree this reasoning extends to race Not even once. You offered some spurious objections, and when I pointed out that they were spurious, and why, you quickly changed the subject. You know this is true, because I just linked to the post where I debunked your rationalizations, and you couldn’t respond with any actual principles. > [@Bricker](#): > > you seek to understand my principles. Well, of course, I suspect that you don’t have any on this issue beyond not liking abortion and wanting to stick it to those folks who disagree. Which is why you’re still fighting, tooth and nail, against putting forward and actual coherent principle and instead have been using the “It’s the law, suck it pro-choice hippies!” defense and various rationalizations for why discriminating against women is okay but discriminating against blacks is just wrong. I’m honestly quite curious to see if you even have a principle that you’re using to defend your stance, but it seems increasingly unlikely. Again, [these are the logical refutations to your rationalization as to why it’s okay to discriminate against women, but not against blacks at pharmacies.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13684106&postcount=394) > [@Bricker](#): > > If you did, you would have acknowledged that I agree race is an impermissible factor. Nope. You have voiced no such principle. In point of fact, your logic explicitly would allow for blacks to be denied service at pharmacies, and only at pharmacies, if something they did/who they were/etc violated a pharmacists “conscience”. You have remained mum on why this would be wrong for blacks but right for women. Your same rationalizations that you use for discriminating against women at pharmacies only would carry right over to discriminating against blacks at restaurants only. That you are either unwilling or unable to address this fact goes a long way to showing the substance of your argument. > [@Bricker](#): > > How does it feel to know that (with the exception of New Jersey) state lawmakers everywhere have either ignored or explicitly rejected your lame arguments? > [@FinnAgain](#): > > it’s easily dismissible because it’s a dodge. It’s the same exact dodge that could have been used during Jim Crow. “Well, that’s the law, tough shit, hippie!” The fact that something is the law means only that it’s the law, not that it’s justice and certainly not that we have to accept it as a _good_ law. Falling back on “but… it’s the law” indicates that you’ve run out of actual arguments. Deja vu all over again. It does appear that you are utterly unwilling to put forward your own principles and support the law on its own merits, and instead this thread is all about: “Nyeh nyeh hippies, suck it, we’re discriminating against women who don’t follow our religious views and there aint nuthin you can do about it!” Prove me wrong. After hundreds of posts in this thread, provide a reasoned response for why the law is a good, just, necessary law (no, not “It’s the law, so, um… it’s the law!”). Explain why allowing discrimination against women at pharmacies is okay but allowing discrimination against blacks at restaurants is not. (no not "Um… because!). Explain why a pharmacist can deny medicine to a woman because she may not have acted in accord with his/her religious views, but someone at a restaurant can not refuse food to a black person because of something they may have done that’s not in accord with his/her religious views. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/566 "2011-04-14T20:34:56Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > . . . these are the logical refutations to your rationalization as to why it’s okay to discriminate against women, but not against blacks at pharmacies. It’s CLEARLY not discrimination against women. There is no indication that grandma has ever been denied her water pills. There is no proof that a soccer mom has ever been denied her Valium. There is nothing in the facts that shows a teenage girl was denied access to diet medication. Unless you can show where the entire class is denied all access to medication, your claim that a class is being discriminated against fails. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/567 "2011-04-14T20:41:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If you have any relevant cites there, by all means. > > Just refresh my recollection on what they are. Point out to me where cites were needed/requested and I failed to provide them. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/568 "2011-04-14T20:44:32Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > It’s CLEARLY not discrimination against women. Mmm hmm. Can you point me to how many men have a uterus, just for the purposes of fighting ignorance? No? Of course it’s discrimination against women. Please, don’t next use the dodge “Well, it’s only discrimination against _some_ women!”. Refusing to serve only blacks who were ‘uppity’ and had gotten college degrees would, also, be discrimination against blacks. This is lamer than your claim that if a pharmacist denies someone’s request to fill a prescription then they haven’t actually been denied if there are other pharmacists somewhere who won’t also deny it. > [@Morgenstern](#): > > Unless you can show where the entire class is denied all access to medication, your claim that a class is being discriminated against fails. That’ll teach me to respond to your claims as they come rather than reading an entire post to see what next bit of nonsense you’ll include. Evidently refusing restaurant service to any “uppity” blacks is fine, as it’s not discrimination against a class. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/569 "2011-04-14T20:52:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I lived without a car, bud, for quite some time. Then I imagine you had no place important to go. > [@](#): > > To who? To you? Why should I care what’s acceptable to you? Do you think I plan my support for policy decisions based on what’s acceptable to you? Acceptable to normal people. > [@](#): > > I don’t. I don’t spend one single solitary second caring what’s acceptable to you. Nor should you. But we live in a society, not in the crumbling hellhole Catholic theocracy you long for. In a society we have to come to a consensus about what’s acceptable. > [@](#): > > Let me guess. “From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need,” right? What did I say that was remotely related to that? Is there some reason that you can’t argue rationally, but instead have to accuse me of being a communist? > [@](#): > > Again, your opinion. Again, I couldn’t care less. Good for you. > [@](#): > > I say that we should stick to our traditional principles of personal freedom, and let pharmacists decide what they wish to serve up and what they wish to avoid. Freedom is the cornerstone of our democracy, not slavish adherence to the hive colony mind you espouse. I have done nothing of the kind. Pharmacist is a job that in our society dispense certain drugs. They are performing a government duty. You are advocating cops who don’t arrest white people or INS agents that ignore non-Mexican immigrants. You should be against this, but because you share the delusional beliefs of the pharmacists in this case you are turning a blind eye. > [@](#): > > What a lucky thing the lawmakers of this country are not swayed by your invitations to become a colony of ants. I have said nothing of the kind. If you weren’t so worked up because you agree with the asshole pharmacists in this issue you’d realize that. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/570 "2011-04-14T20:55:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If I heard that a person had actually been refused service at a pharmacy where there was no other pharmacy within 60 miles, I would consider that unreasonable. And what do you think would be a reasonable distance for those who for some reason(no car, can’t drive, disabled, crappy or nonexistent public transportation) have to rely on their rural pharmacy? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/571 "2011-04-14T20:56:10Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Mmm hmm. Can you point me to how many men have a uterus, just for the purposes of fighting ignorance? No? > Of course it’s discrimination against women. Please, don’t next use the dodge “Well, it’s only discrimination against _some_ women!”. Refusing to serve only blacks who were ‘uppity’ and had gotten college degrees would, also, be discrimination against blacks. > > This is lamer than your claim that if a pharmacist denies someone’s request to fill a prescription then they haven’t actually been denied if there are other pharmacists somewhere who won’t also deny it. > > That’ll teach me to respond to your claims as they come rather than reading an entire post to see what next bit of nonsense you’ll include. > Evidently refusing restaurant service to any “uppity” blacks is fine, as it’s not discrimination against a class. I think I’ve said, no fewer than three times in this thread, that refusing service based on race is not, in any way, acceptable. Our society demands equality for all races. It may not always be the case, but it’s definitely the goal. With respect to the issue of discrimination against women, I understand you haven’t read most of the thread, otherwise you’d not be arguing invalid points that have been dispelled, destroyed and buried numerous times. I’m not going to insult you by posting a legal definition of discrimination, instead, I’m going to make you do the research on your own, and perhaps you’ll learn why your argument is without merit. In the meantime, I’ll quietly laugh every time you manifest your misunderstanding of the particular concept. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/572 "2011-04-14T20:57:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, but in your zeal to describe how the law is bad, you’re making legal claims, such as the claim that this law involves protected class analysis. > > If you weren’t making those claims, then we’d be having a different (and much shorter) discussion: > > W-a-M: This is a bad law! > > B: No, it isn’t. > > W-a-M: Yes, it is. It elevates the rights of pharmacists’s “conscience” over the health and reproductive rights of women, and we shouldn’t do that as a society. > > B: Well, I disagree with your weighting of those rights, but you’re certainly entitled to your opinion. Of course you and I are entitled to our opinions. Given your pro-life stance I doubt there will ever be a restriction on abortions you do not like. You maintain a self-proclaimed dedication to “facts” and reasoning to inform your opinions but in Scalia-like fashion you can pervert and pretzel that reasoning to suit whatever predetermined outcome you like. Support for CC laws is perverse. Where does it end? What limits are there on them? - If a court clerk decided, because of their personal conscience, they do not want to file your case is that ok? Just come back tomorrow and file with a different clerk. That is not too onerus. - If a biology teacher decides not to teach evolution is that ok? The teacher’s conscience does not permit them to teach evolution. The kids can find the information on the internet or library. - If a pharmacist decides not to provide HIV medication is that ok? Their conscience does not agree with the lifestyle so they will not be a part of providing medication. - If a medication for Alzheimers uses stem cells that a pharmacist’s conscience objects to can a pharmacist refuse to provide it to grandma? You and your ilk cannot get abortions outlawed outright (wouldn’t that be your “will of the people”?). Instead a [raft of laws](http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/13/abortion.state.laws/?hpt=C1) and regulations are attempted to put every possible roadblock in the way of women. This is another piece in that larger picture. Pharmacists can object to filling a prescription based on training science and facts. You would have them interfering with the doctor/patient relationship based on personal belief. You are tossing the rational in favor of the irrational. For someone who has prided himself on being rational that is…odd. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/573 "2011-04-14T21:00:57Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Mmm hmm. Can you point me to how many men have a uterus, just for the purposes of fighting ignorance? No? > Of course it’s discrimination against women. Please, don’t next use the dodge “Well, it’s only discrimination against _some_ women!”. Refusing to serve only blacks who were ‘uppity’ and had gotten college degrees would, also, be discrimination against blacks. Surely the pharmacist, in her infinite majesty, will deny men as well as women their post-abortion medication for uterine bleeding. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/574 "2011-04-14T21:08:08Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > - If a pharmacist decides not to provide HIV medication is that ok? Their conscience does not agree with the lifestyle so they will not be a part of providing medication. I think this example comes closest because it involves a moral rejection of providing medicine to those who(in the the mind of the pharmcist) are in need of medicine because they supposedly got that way through sinning. Would/should a pharmacist be able to refuse to provide HIV meds? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/575 "2011-04-14T21:12:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And at an average human walking speed of 3.1 miles per hour… that’s about a 20 minute walk. So 40 minute round-trip. Hope the weather is nice. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/576 "2011-04-14T21:15:42Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Surely the pharmacist, in her infinite majesty, will deny men as well as women their post-abortion medication for uterine bleeding. Would you feel better if the pharmacist refused to fill an order for male hormonal contraceptive? Is that discrimination against men? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/577 "2011-04-14T21:22:02Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > I think I’ve said, no fewer than three times in this thread, that refusing service based on race is not, in any way, acceptable. So maybe you’ll be the one to explain why discriminating against women is okay, but discriminating against blacks is not? Remember, pharmacists can discriminate against ‘impure’ women who may potentially have had abortions, and restaurants can discriminate against ‘uppity’ blacks who may not know their place. Both fair, right, since an entire class isn’t being discriminated against. > [@Morgenstern](#): > > I understand you haven’t read most of the thread As a tactic this ranks even _below_ your attempts to claim that the law says things it does not, doesn’t say things it does, defines terms it does not… to say nothing of your claims that denying someone medicine isn’t actually denying them medicine or that behavior specifically allowed by a law is an “absurd hypothetical.” > [@](#): > > by posting a legal definition of discrimination Last time you posted a law and [it was proved, again and again and again that you were dead wrong in your claims](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13684663&postcount=433), you retreated to the same sort of nonsense. It’s okay, you keep telling folks that you can refuse to serve “uppity negroes” at restaurants since that’s not discrimination, and the rest of us will understand that’s still discrimination. Happy laughing. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/578 "2011-04-14T21:31:38Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Would you feel better if the pharmacist refused to fill an order for male hormonal contraceptive? Is that discrimination against men? Not sure what their objection would be since, if it worked, it would mean no fertilization of an egg so no de facto abortion is possible. Maybe if they were religiously opposed to people having sex for any reason except procreation but even the Pope does not believe that (I think there are some orthodox religions that might…bit of a reach). But pretend they did. If they exclusively applied it to men then yeah. If they refused to fill any contraceptive prescription, whether for men or women, then they are not discriminating. Akin to if there was a tax on women but not men. That would be discrimination. If the tax applies to all citizens then it is not discrimination. In the case before us this CC stuff only impacts women near as I can tell. If you know of it impacting men directly I’d like to hear about it. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/579 "2011-04-14T21:34:01Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > So maybe you’ll be the one to explain why discriminating against women is okay, but discriminating against blacks is not? … It appears that you alone are lost in the definition of discrimination. Let me ask you this, IF a pharmacist refuses to fill a MHC prescription, is that discrimination against males? Because according to your logic, refusal to fill a similar medication for women is discrimination against women. If this is the case, then we now have a pharmacist who discriminates against people. Kind of shows how absurd your discrimination claim is, doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/580 "2011-04-14T21:37:14Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I think this example comes closest because it involves a moral rejection of providing medicine to those who(in the the mind of the pharmcist) are in need of medicine because they supposedly got that way through sinning. Would/should a pharmacist be able to refuse to provide HIV meds? I believe that is the most likely case to potentially crop up as regards males but I do not see why any of the other examples can’t involve a moral rejection of what the person is being asked to do. Perhaps a prostitute is filing a case for police brutality. The clerk figures the whore had it coming. There are certainly teachers out there who reject evolution and favor creationism. They may not be able to teach creationism but why make them teach evolution if it is against their conscience to do so? Why would those instances be fundamentally different than the topic at hand? Where does it stop? I also think a pharmacist may well oppose medicines made from stem cells. If they oppose contraceptives not sure how they’d skip by that one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713.md?page=30)