Your post is contradictory. If a state allows that a pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription on ANY grounds, then the business owner CANNOT FIRE him for what the state 'law' permits.
The fact remains that business owners do fire pharmacists for refusing to fill a prescription, so the pharmacist's refusal is NOT protected by those states. So the prior posts indicating states allowing pharmacists to refuse on ANY grounds is totally hogwash.
As for the statement of not understanding how stocking and refusal to fill are not linked, that is not the case. You seem to believe they are synonymous, which they are not. I'm stating stocking and filling a prescription, although related, are not necessarily synonymous, and for the purposes of the original poster's question, are outside of the scope. Anything can be linked if one tries hard enough, but that doesn't mean they are the same entities.
1. The right to not fill a prescription is protected by the state. Their license is not revoked or censured.
2. Pharmacies are governed by administrative codes, not laws.
3. Business owners, expecially in "right to work" states, can fire employees for any reason at any time without any notice. It's not illegal to go to a bar, get stinking drunk, and tell everyone that your boss is a big jerk, but they can fire you for it. It's not illegal to divulge trade secrets, but your boss can fire you for it.
4. You are too ignorant to live.
Tell me sir, how can you have it both ways: #1 and #3.
If a pharmacist is protected under #1 for refusal for ANY reason (BTW: whoever mentioned ANY in a previous post is full of darn) , how can the business owner fire him under #3 ?
I am a bit confused how you could think there is a contradiction. According to the law, the pharmacist would be allowed to decide not to fill the order. Hence, he can't be forced by police or arrested. But if his boss wants those orders to be filled, and he refuses, he can be fired.
This whole topic is silly to argue about since it is basically the moral arguement that gets the juices flowing, but it is the law the decides what is gonna be. I think it should be the case that people can get their prescriptions filled, which is really only a problem if the pharmacy is the only one around. And while i suppose i can understand the pro-life arguement about the morning after pill, objecting to birth control is unbelievably destructive and a reason why it is so hard to take them seriously sometimes.