|
This starts to sound like slippery slope stuff. Ordinarily I would tend to agree with the free-market principle (at least in theory) but what if firefighters refuse to save the houses of gay people cause homosexuality is immoral to them? Why should a police officer help a muslim especially if their opposed to "terrorism"? You see where this could lead?
Or how about, police and firemen refusing to save the lives of people in a fire-bombed abortion clinic cause you know, baby-killers are against their morals. I suppose the main difference or argument could be "life-threatening" situations but then, that is still a slippery slope. Who's to say what medication is vital or not or what have you, like in the birth control example above. In theory, the pharmacist does not have access to all the facts. Maybe the person "needs" the medical abortion due to rape, or it's life-threatening to the mother. We can't just start playing judge and jury now can we?
Or you could patronize the next pharmacy that is willing to fill your prescription and maybe the other one will lose money big-time. Then again, are these the types of issues we want to leave up to the "free" market?
__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but
to the one that endures to the end."
"Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!"
- My recruiter
|