Over at Cold Hearted Truth, they use the trivial issue of decision making at the retail level to demonstrate why the StarTribune's institution bias is so real.
Bottom Line: Last time I checked, the 'right' to use a morning after pill was no more legally relevant than the 'right' to drink beer, rent a particular movie, or buy a particular magazine. Why then is it treated as if it is more important? What makes the rights of a pharmacist any different than the rights of a convenience store owner?
Here's the link that prompted this whole thing:
Can Muslim convenience store clerks sell me coffee and doughnuts, but send me to a different store to buy beer because they morally object to drinking? Can my fundamentalist video store employee allow me to rent "Crash" and "Walk the Line" but direct me to his coworker to rent "Brokeback Mountain" because he objects to homosexuality?
To answer the hysterical Donald Livingston; yes they can.