They don't. You don't actually have the right to force a store to carry a product whether they want to or not.

"The lawsuit was brought by a drugstore owner in Olympia, Washington, and two of his pharmacists, all of whom shared the religious conviction that emergency contraceptives are tantamount to abortion because they can block a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb."

Exactly, and I agree wholeheartedly.

Actually, no. Take a look at the article. This isn't about the employees of a pharmacy, this is about the owner of a pharmacy choosing what drugs they want to carry. The court found that the regulation allowed a myriad of reasons for a pharmacy to choose not to stock a drug, while owners who chose not to stock for…

That's not the issue in this case. Here, I'll quote it.

"What right is being taken away by the pharmacist?"

"There is a significant difference between not stocking a product because your company can't sustain a viable profit margin from it, and not stocking a product because someone has a moral issue with the use of that product."

With great respect to your argument, what you are citing is the regulation that the court just overturned. The law in question stated that pharmacies were required to stock and dispense drugs for which there is a demand.

"The lawsuit was brought by a drugstore owner in Olympia, Washington, and two of his pharmacists, all of whom shared the religious conviction that emergency contraceptives are tantamount to abortion because they can block a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb.

Again, right, "should". I respect your opinion and quite frankly I share it. That said, in order for courts to impose our opinion on them, there has to be reason. They have to be able to show that the rights of others are infringed to such a degree that it warrants denying the pharmacist their right to choose what…

No, no, step back a moment and look at what you are saying. There's been no law passed here. The natural state of our society is that a business owner can choose what they want to sell, and what they don't want to. The question put to the courts is whether they should be required to sell plan-b.

With respect to your opinion, but when you say "They don't have a right to decide who gets what medication based on religion. Period. The end." What legal basis do you have for saying that? My question, again with respect to your reply, remains unanswered.

Honestly, and I respect your opinion about it, but I don't think there's reason to assume pharmacists ever thought they were required to carry any product that anyone wants in their stores. They choose whether or not to sell lots of things, lots of OTC drugs, too.

Again, as I have responded to others, the pharmacists who refuse to carry this believe that life begins at fertilization. From their perspective, it isn't birth control, it is an abortion.

When you say if it is legal it should be available, and I assume you mean at every pharmacy, what legal basis do you have to say that? "Should" is tricky in terms of law. Should that be every drug OTC and prescription?

Until the stage at which life begins is decided legally, what legal basis do you have for making that assertion? Not medical or scientific, though I've yet to see a "Life begins at..." scientific law as far as that goes anyway. These pharmacists believe life begins at fertilization, and proving them wrong is…

There honestly isn't any difference, I agree. That doesn't really answer the question of whether we have the right to force people to sell things they don't want to, though. What standard are we holding up beyond this one case?

For someone who believes life starts at fertilization, it's the same thing. Many here wouldn't consider a fetus to be a life in the early stages of pregnancy, but doctors who opt out for religious reasons do believe that, and aren't forced to hold to a standard of when life starts.

I understand that that is how you feel, and how most if not all of us who frequent Jezebel feel, yet it is not anything like a universally held belief. When life begins is still very hazy in terms of law, and much debated in terms of public opinion. People who dissent from selling this would tell you they believe…

Risking a mauling for the sake of balance, I'd have to remind people that most pharmacists became pharmacists before plan-b was approved for sale. It's not completely fair to say "well, wtf did you become a pharmacist for then" when they probably had no idea that they'd be faced with this. It's only been approved…