So your point was not about discriminatory laws in general, but the specific subset of them known as “Jim Crow” laws?
Um… OK. Yes. Excellent point, Whack-a-Mole, entirely in keeping with your keen arguments here in this thread. Jim Crow laws WERE on the rise at first, and then they declined.
And did that, in fact, actually stop the patient from getting medication?
Because that’s what freedom means. If my personal whim is to go about wearing a “Whack-a-Mole Sucks” T-shirt, then I should be permitted to do so. If a pharmacists wishes to refuse service to someone because he doesn’t like her use of the day-after pill, then he should be allowed to do that. Pharmacists are not public servants. They are private actors. They are not paid by the government. They are citizens.
If a client doesn’t like his pharmacist’s refusal, or his smock, or his wall color, he can go to a different pharmacist.
That’s what our notion of freedom is.
I know you would rather that we were bees or ants, collectivist servants of the Great Public Good, and pharmacists would just accept their lot in life is to serve and not ask questions. But fortunately, that view is still in the minority, and thus will not gain a foothold.