Consequences
My mom is fond of saying, "You are free to choose. You are just not free to choose the consequences." It's interesting that people seem to only apply this to choices they feel are in error. Sin usually. It is, however, a sword that cuts both ways.
It seems that some pharmacists are refusing to dispense birth control pills, citing a conflict with their beliefs in the same way a doctor can refuse to perform an abortion. Apparently in some minds contraception is the same as having an abortion.
This is all fine and dandy. People are allowed to have beliefs. Acting on those beliefs is generally limited to boundaries set by society. They are free to choose their course. They are not, however, free to choose the consequences of that course. Three Eckerd pharmacists were fired in Denton, Texas when they would not fill a prescription for the morning after pill to a rape victim. Legislation is now before the Texas legislature that would protect their jobs from such choices. So pharmacists can choose which drugs they feel like dispensing, but Eckerd cannot choose to not employ selective pharmacists? Does that seem bassackwards and wrong to anyone else? If these pharmacists cannot fulfill their duties to their employer's satisfaction, they are free to find employment with a company who shares their views or find employment in another line of work.
Some may suggest that such a view is hypocritical when there has been some controversy over church run charities being allowed to hire and fire according to their religious principles. Such people haven't been paying attention. The issue has not been their hiring practices, it has been such charities receiving the benefits of public funds when the public would not be allowed equal access to the services those funds support. Big difference.
Our society is litigious enough as it is without legislatures creating laws to amend every perceived slight. The market is capable of resolving such issues on its own. Either people will patronize selective pharmacists in support of their beliefs or they will take their business elsewhere. As much talk as there has been recently about the people being allowed to decide for themselves and not have moral decisions forced on them, you would think politicians would favor such a course, allowing the people to directly express their will on the matter, leaving them to focus on more global matters such as taxes, education and health care. Apparently it's not the usurpation of the people's will that is the problem, but the restriction of the influence and power of the legislature.